Governmental Regulations

Why The ITC Review May Not Be a Silver Bullet to High Fertilizer Prices

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 21:04:31 GMT

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) has l aunched its scheduled five-year “sunset review” of countervailing duties (CVD) on phosphate fertilizers from Morocco and Russia. While these duties were intended to protect domestic industry, the landscape has shifted: one of the nation’s two major phosphate producers is now calling for their removal.

The Cost of Protection

In place since April 2021, the CVDs have been a flashpoint for farmers and trade groups who argue the duties have artificially inflated input costs. Recent research backs those concerns:

Texas A&M (AFPC) : Found the CVD increased diammonium phosphate (DAP) prices by 28.6%, costing U.S. farmers an additional $6.9 billion between 2021 and 2025.
Oklahoma State University : Estimated a 34% price hike on DAP specifically linked to Moroccan duties.

During an October congressional hearing, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) urged the administration to act, saying, “There is something that the Trump administration can do right now to help ease the burden for farmers: lowering the countervailing duties on phosphate from Morocco.”

(Data Source: USDA)

Declining U.S. Production

The U.S. phosphate market is highly concentrated. Two producers—Mosaic and Nutrien—account for 90% of domestic volume (Mosaic’s share is roughly 75%).

In a statement, Nutrien said: “Based on evolving global phosphate supply and demand dynamics since 2021, we believe removing countervailing duties on phosphate imports would be a constructive step that supports U.S. farmer economics, balanced fertilizer application and agricultural productivity. Farmers and food security are at the center of everything we do, and we continuously engage with our customers and associations on issues that are important to U.S. agriculture.”

Mosaic has been contacted for a statement.

The Resource Reality

Opponents of the duties point to a stark reality: U.S. phosphorus rock extraction has plummeted by more than half since 1995, dropping from 45 million metric tons to just 20 million in 2023.

Globally, there are five key phosphate suppliers, in order of largest volumes of production: China, Saudia Arabia, Russia, Morrocco and the U.S.

The “Coin Flip” Outcome

Despite the pressure to remove duties, experts warn it may not be a silver bullet for high prices. Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizer at StoneX, describes the ITC’s upcoming decision as a “coin flip.”

Even if the duties vanish, Linville notes that global headwinds remain.

“Whether the CVD rate is in place or not, it doesn’t fix the fact that China is not participating [in exports],” Linville said on the Top Producer podcast.

He notes that high anhydrous and sulfur prices—the two biggest variable costs in phosphate production—will keep a floor under prices.

He continues: “If we drop NOLA DAP prices by $100 per ton or $150, it would be phenomenal, but if it’s only $100 to $150 per ton, you’d see U.S. phosphate production be curtailed. We’ve got a finite amount of phosphate rock in this country. They are not going to be produce the tons of an upgraded product and sell them at a loss when they know it’s a finite supply. And once the market gets back to where we can make money, they’ll supply it again.”

ARA's Statement on White House Executive Order Addressing Agricultural Input Supply Chains

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:32:33 GMT

The Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA) today responded to the White House Executive Order issued February 18, 2026, titled “Promoting the National Defense by Ensuring an Adequate Supply of Elemental Phosphorus and Glyphosate Based Herbicides,” which underscores the importance of maintaining reliable domestic supply chains for critical agricultural inputs.

“Agricultural retailers see firsthand how disruptions to essential inputs create uncertainty for farmers and rural communities,” said Daren Coppock, President and CEO of ARA. “The Executive Order’s focus on strengthening domestic supply chains and maintaining access to key inputs helps support certainty at the farm level and reinforces the resilience of the nation’s food system.”

Elemental phosphorus is a foundational input across agricultural and industrial supply chains, while glyphosate based herbicides remain an important weed management tool for many U.S. farming operations.

“As implementation moves forward, it is important that federal actions reflect real world supply chain dynamics,” Coppock continued. “Agricultural retailers are prepared to work with USDA and other federal partners to ensure existing distribution channels continue to serve farmers efficiently.”

Agricultural retailers serve as the primary distribution channel connecting manufacturers with farmers, providing timely access to crop protection tools and nutrients needed to support farm productivity and food supply stability. ARA is proud to represent agricultural retailers and distributors nationwide.

Trump’s Glyphosate Executive Order Frames Food Security As National Security

Thu, 19 Feb 2026 16:12:24 GMT

On Feb. 18, President Trump signed an executive order related to domestic elemental phosphorus and glyphosate production touching on three policy tenets common to the administration: national security, food production and affordability. One connection that wasn’t made: Make America Healthy Again (MAHA), as some MAHA-aligned advocates have been critical of the pervasive use of glyphosate in agricultural production.

The executive order outlines why and how USDA will ensure adequate supplies of elemental phosphates and glyphosate herbicides.

From the executive order: “As the most widely used crop protection tools in United States agriculture, glyphosate-based herbicides are a cornerstone of this Nation’s agricultural productivity and rural economy, allowing United States farmers and ranchers to maintain high yields and low production costs while ensuring that healthy, affordable food options remain within reach for all American families.”

Elemental phosphorus is used in many industrial and defense-related applications and notably is a key ingredient in the process to formulate glyphosate.

Bayer, through its subsidiary Monsanto, is the only domestic producer of glyphosate in the U.S. Bayer mines phosphorus in Soda Springs, Idaho, formulates glyphosate production in Muscatine, Iowa, and finishes the formulation and production in Luling, La. Due to legal liabilities over lawsuits related to allegations of glyphosate leading to non-Hodgkin lymphoma, last year Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said the company may stop producing the herbicide.

Bayer subsidiary Monsanto provided this statement: “President Trump’s executive order reinforces the critical need for U.S. farmers to have access to essential, domestically produced crop protection tools such as glyphosate. We will comply with this order to produce glyphosate and elemental phosphorus.”

Noting the supply chain vulnerability, the executive order mentions the Department of the Interior has designated elemental phosphorus as a scarce material. Every year, 6,000,000 kilograms of elemental phosphorus are imported into the U.S.

Per the president’s executive order, “Consistent with these findings, I find that ensuring robust domestic elemental phosphorus mining and United States-based production of glyphosate-based herbicides is central to American economic and national security. Without immediate Federal action, the United States remains inadequately equipped and vulnerable.”

The order delegates Defense Production Act authorities to the secretary of agriculture to help ensure adequate supplies of elemental phosphorus and glyphosate-based herbicides, including issuing orders and adopting implementing regulations in coordination with defense officials, while avoiding actions that would jeopardize the viability of domestic producers.

Supporters of the MAHA movement have posted on social media reacting negatively to the White House supporting glyphosate production and use in the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr., who has been critical of glyphosate, has not commented on the executive order.

While the first MAHA report issued in May 2025 opened up the discussion to criticize pesticide use, including glyphosate, the follow-up action strategy related in September 2025 was more well received by the agricultural industry for how it cited scientific standards for pesticide regulation and use.

Bayer Proposes Class Settlement Deal in Monsanto’s Roundup Litigation

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 20:09:59 GMT

Announced today, Bayer’s subsidiary Monsanto has reached a class settlement deal —pending court approval—to reach the company’s goal of containing glyphosate litigation.

The deal includes $7.25 billion over 21 years for current and future glyphosate cases.

Almost two years ago, then-new CEO Bill Anderson said it was his goal to have the legal liabilities “under control” by 2026, which had weighed on Bayer. Company leaders said the settlement provides the greatest possible closure for the Roundup litigation by addressing all present and potential claims of non-Hodgkin-lymphoma (NHL) allegedly due to Roundup exposure.

In his statement today, Anderson said the company is “choosing speed and containment over a lengthy battle in the courts.”

“Today’s announcement does not take away from the truth, a truth that scientists and regulators around the planet continue to uphold: that glyphosate is a safe and essential tool for farmers in the U.S. and around the world,” Anderson said.

He continued, “This settlement comes at a cost, even beyond its direct monetary price. It has cost employees their jobs. It’s diverted funding away from new medicines and new seeds and towards litigation, an industry that costs the average U.S. household more than four thousand dollars every year. So, while this settlement is necessary for the company today, we maintain our significant objections to the broken tort system that makes it necessary.”

The settlement is filed in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri. The class includes people who allege Roundup exposure before Feb. 17, 2026 and who already have NHL or are diagnosed within 16 years after final court approval.

“With more than 40,000 Roundup personal injury non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma claims already in court or under tolling agreements, new filings arriving daily, a pending Supreme Court petition that could restrict plaintiffs’ recovery rights, and crowded dockets offering limited trial dates, Motley Rice began negotiating with other proposed class counsel to reach a settlement with Monsanto,” said Motley Rice co-founder and settlement negotiator, Joseph F. Rice. “I believe this $7.25 billion proposed national class settlement reached in Missouri state court is the best path forward to finally bring the Roundup® litigation to a closing chapter. Based on the hard work of class counsel and Monsanto’s counsel, both occupational and residential exposures will be covered, the rights of future claimants have been uniquely protected, and payments should begin in 2026.”

Six years ago, Bayer proposed a class settlement which did not move forward. That proposal was limited to four years of funding and future litigation beyond those four years required an expert science panel for determination of qualifications.

Beyond the class proposal, Bayer says it has reached separate confidential agreements to settle certain other Roundup cases.

Today’s news comes one month after the Supreme Court agreed to hear one of the cases , referred to as a the Durnell case, which calls into question federal preemption of pesticide labels.

Lawsuit Claims Rail Fee Blocks Competition, Cuts Plains Farmers’ Grain Prices

Thu, 12 Feb 2026 20:42:04 GMT

In a lawsuit filed in late January in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, two agribusiness plaintiffs and 13 farmers allege antitrust violations by a Class I railroad, Union Pacific, and a short-line operator, Kansas & Oklahoma Railroad.

Plaintiffs include Weskan Grain and Colorado Pacific Railroad, along with D&L Farms, GP; E&D Farms, GP; D&C Farms, GP; L&E Farms, GP; North Four Farms, GP; Marienthal Grain, LLC; D&A Farms, GP; Hineman Land & Cattle, Inc.; Hineman Ranch, L.L.C.; Circle C Farms, Inc.; Steven Compton; Mark Sanders; and JLD Partnership.

The lawsuit alleges UP and K&O worked together to stifle competition after Colorado Pacific Railroad rehabilitated the Towner Line. Plaintiffs claim the alleged conduct gave the railroads unfair control over westbound grain shipments — affecting the prices farmers receive for grain in Lane, Scott, Wichita, and Greeley Counties in Kansas and Kiowa County, Colo.

Union Pacific provided this statement, noting its view that the matter falls under the Surface Transportation Board’s purview: “Union Pacific denies the allegations of the lawsuit and will present the facts to the court and Surface Transportation Board who handles these issues.”

Will Bramblett, CEO of Weskan Grain, said after Soloviev Group acquired Colorado Pacific Railroad, Union Pacific and K&O put in place what he described as a “paper barrier” that makes interchange across the Kansas-Colorado line uneconomic–reportedly over $500 per car.

“What we’re trying to do is just get a more competitive environment for our local producers — farmers in the area — to be able to ship grain to markets across the U.S. and export markets in a more competitive manner,” Bramblett said.

As an example, he said in eastern Colorado, Weskan has been able to use a 110-car shuttle served by both BNSF and Union Pacific to bring cost savings and basis improvements of 25 to 40 cents.

“We’d just like to see that same thing happen in western Kansas,” he said.

Watco, the parent company of K&O, provided this statement: “We do not comment on litigation matters, but as a matter of course we will defend our commitment to the values that define us through the proper legal channels.”

Farm Journal TV subscribers: Watch the full fireside chat with Stefan Soloviev, chairman of the Soloviev Group, from the 2026 Top Producer Summit.

Lawmakers Raise Concerns Over Ag Shipping Impacts in Proposed Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern Merger

Mon, 09 Feb 2026 03:53:52 GMT

Early in February, U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., sent a letter to Surface Transportation Board Chairman Patrick Fuchs urging a “rigorous and comprehensive review” of the potential merger between Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and Norfolk Southern Railway (NS). Johnson said 47 House members joined the letter. Here’s a link to the letter dated Feb. 4, 2026.

Johnson said the merger could directly affect agriculture’s ability to move grain to domestic and export markets.

“I want to make sure they take a really good look at this. I’m not saying I’m opposed. What I am saying is this is clearly going to have an impact on how agriculture gets crops to market, particularly to the coast,” he told AgriTalk host Chip Flory.

He said he’s hearing concerns from South Dakota constituents and agricultural stakeholders, noting that agriculture is among the nation’s largest rail shipping customers.

“It’s hard to overstate the impact of rail to agriculture, and the STB is supposed to make sure that this is good for customers and good for the public interest,” Johnson said.

The proposed UP-NS combination would be the largest rail merger ever to come before the STB. It would also be the first considered under the agency’s newer merger review rules and amid heightened scrutiny of market concentration.

“I am pretty distrustful of high degrees of market concentration,” Johnson said. “When you remove a major player from the market… we want to make sure there’s still robust competition.”

The companies’ initial STB application was recently rejected without prejudice, meaning UP and NS can revise and refile, because it was deemed incomplete. The companies have until Feb. 17 to file a letter stating their intent to reapply. Until then, the STB and industry stakeholders are awaiting an updated application.

What the Treasury’s Announcement on 45Z Tax Credits Means to Farmers

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 22:56:55 GMT

On Feb. 3, the Treasury Department confirmed farmers will have a seat at the table to benefit from 45Z tax credits with its release of a 170-page document stating its proposed rule.

“They made a bunch of clarifications for the biofuel producers today — who qualifies, what qualifies, how to calculate and how to register,” says Mitchell Hora, an Iowa farmer and founder of Continuum Ag. “It says farmers are going to a have a seat at the table, too, which is what we’ve been advocating for this whole time.”

There have been questions over the past nearly four years since 45Z was first proposed as a biofuel producer tax credit based on carbon intensity of feedstocks. It’s had iterations through the Biden administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, and now the Trump administration’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

As written in the proposed rule, biofuels feedstocks would be limited to be sourced from the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

“Clearly, the Treasury has been very concerned about foreign feedstock, especially foreign used coconut oil and palm oil,” Hora says.

For farmers, three big questions remain.

1. What’s the model used to calculate carbon intensity?

Before today’s announcement, there were two competing models, one from the Department of Energy (known as GREET) and one from USDA announced last January. Today, the Treasury confirmed it’ll be a model from USDA, though it’s a new version now called 45Z FD-CIC.

“It’s going to be something different altogether, which is a combo of the two,“ Hora says. “We don’t know all the details yet, but we know they are going to utilize the language from USDA regarding verification, traceability and audits.”

Hora expects the model to use ag practices in its calculations, including cover crops, reduced tillage, fertilizer efficiency, manure and yield.

As for when the final USDA-driven 45Z FD-CIC will be released, Hora says ‘hopefully soon.’

2. Which chain of custody methodology will be used?

Hora is advocating for book and claim, which he says is more straightforward and would allow a farmer to sell their crop based on the carbon intensity (CI) score of a field, avoiding identity preservation or blending. The alternative is mass balance.

“The big thing that we want to see happen in the USDA rules is that the farmer data should be accounted for via a book and claim,” he says.

3. How much is this worth to the farmer?

Hora says today’s announcement clarifies a lot of the rule for the biofuels producer, which is the recipient of the tax credit. How much of that value will be shared with the farmer is still unknown.

“We’ve shown that farmers could contribute an average CI reduction of 18 CI points, which could translate to pretty substantial value, upwards of close to a dollar a bushel,” he says. “That’s to the ethanol plant, though. The biofuel producer gets the money. A farmer would get a portion of that, and we don’t know how the pie is going to be split, but the total pie that the farmers could contribute to, under the current models, the math ends up being $1.08 per bushel.”

While today’s announcement doesn’t mean money will start moving, Hora says we’re closer than ever to having opportunities for farmers.

Moving Forward With What is Known

Hora says while those questions have yet to be answered, he knows record keeping is paramount to seize on the opportunity. As such, he’s encouraging farmers to get their field-level data in order, including as applied maps, receipts, shape files, aerial imagery, etc.

“At least we got clarity today that this thing is going to happen. [There’s] still a process ahead, but farmers have a seat at the table. It’s a huge day for American ag,” Hora says.

Industry groups reacted in support of the Treasury’s proposed rule.

“Treasury’s proposal is a definite step in the right direction and will allow corn growers to transition into and supply the aviation sector,” Ohio farmer and National Corn Growers Association President Jed Bower says in a news release. “Being able to fuel commercial planes with fuel derived from corn would be important to the long-term economic viability of farming. After today we are one step closer to that possibility.”

The American Soybean Association (ASA) and the National Oilseed Processors Association (NOPA) sent a joint release emphasizing how the 45Z rule should be in conjunction with a final Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) blend target announcement.

“Updating federal biofuel policies to prioritize soy-based fuels is a key ASA priority, and we applaud Treasury for this action which will help build domestic markets for U.S. soybeans,” says Scott Metzger, ASA president and Ohio farmer. “While Treasury’s work to update tax guidance is critical, ASA strongly urges the administration to immediately finalize RFS blending targets that complement the work of Treasury and Congress, by setting robust biofuel volumes and implementing new policies that will prioritize the utilization of U.S. soybeans in production.”

“These policies work hand in hand,” says Devin Mogler, NOPA president and CEO. “Treasury’s updated 45Z guidance is an important step forward, but it must be reinforced by finalizing the RFS as proposed. A strong RFS that includes the import RIN reduction mechanism is critical to putting American farmers and rural manufacturing first and providing the certainty our industry needs to continue to invest and grow so we can crush more soybeans right here in the U.S.”

Ag Retailers Association Says These Issues and Policies Are On the Forefront

Tue, 20 Jan 2026 16:06:19 GMT

Ag labor, modern ag technologies, transportation and supply chains are on the list of policy priorities for the Ag Retailers Association.

ARA’s senior director of government affairs Hunter Carpenter gave details on the recommendations from the public policy committee which will go in front of the full board at its upcoming meeting.

He says while some issues always make the list, there are notable timely updates for issues and policies that could directly effect ag retail businesses.

“Transportation is probably one that’s taking on the biggest role right now,” Carpenter says. “You have the UP Norfolk Southern merger which is at the table. You have the effort trying to modernize the commercial driver’s license. And we’ve still got to get some policy objectives done on the Farm Bill side of things.”

Regarding the potential UP/Norfolk Southern merger, Carpenter says it’s a “big deal.”

“We do have concerns about that possible merger,” he says. “They have filed their merger application with the Surface Transportation Board. So we are in discussions with our members on what ARA should say or should not say on the matter.”

As for what’s left from Farm Bill related legislation, he says while many facets of Farm Bill were addressed in the One Big Beautiful Bill, there are some left on the table:

biostimulant definition
increased TSP Access Act to try and get more, technical service providers certified
pesticide labeling uniformity
NPDS permit relief

He also highlights Congress currently operating under its continuing resolution which has a Jan. 30 deadline with bills moving but still needing to get those passed before another shutdown.

“Those are just a number of the policy objectives we had in that Farm Bill that passed the House Ag Committee in May of 2024 that included a lot of our priorities that were not included in the budget process because they did not touch the actual budget numbers,” Carpenter says.

Retailers can learn more about the upcoming ARA Fly-in at ARADC.org. Last year, ARA organized more than 135 meetings with different offices on the Hill. This year’s event takes place March 2 Mar 4, 2026.

Supreme Court Will Review Roundup Case

Fri, 16 Jan 2026 22:32:09 GMT

The U.S. Supreme Court announced today it will review a case that could impact litigation that involves Roundup. This comes after Monsanto, a subsidiary of Bayer, petitioned the court and received a brief in support of the appeal from the U.S. solicitor general’s office.

“The Supreme Court decision to take the case is good news for U.S. farmers, who need regulatory clarity,” said Bayer CEO Bill Anderson. “It’s also an important step in our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain this litigation. It is time for the U.S. legal system to establish that companies should not be punished under state laws for complying with federal warning label requirements.”

The specific case to be reviewed (Durnell) originated in Missouri in October 2023, when the Missouri Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, saying the company failed to warn of the product’s risk, and awarded them $1.25 million.

There has been a split among federal circuit courts in Roundup personal injury litigation, which brought it to the Supreme Court. The company says this raises the cross-cutting question of whether federal law preempts state claims based on failure-to-warn theories.

To date, Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer. The company has budgeted more than $17 billion toward the glyphosate litigation.

Anderson became Bayer CEO in 2023, and one of his commitments was to get the glyphosate litigation “under control” by the end of 2026. In total, there have been about 180,000 lawsuits brought forward, with about 60,000 cases open now.

Previously, Bayer announced a multi-prong strategy to achieve Anderson’s goal, including court case management, state law advocacy and a call to the Supreme Court to review the FIFRA’s preemption provision.

The company has said it could withdraw from the market if they aren’t successful with the goal of containing the litigation next year. Currently, Bayer is the only domestic producer of glyphosate in the U.S.

How Trump’s Bridge Payments Could Affect Farmland Prices

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 18:11:56 GMT

Farmers National Company president Paul Schadegg sees the recently announced $12 billion in bridge payments to farmers having a variety of effects on the ag economy.

“They think it’ll be a shot of adrenaline to the ag economy,” he says on “AgriTalk.” “There are some people who say they’ll use it to pay down debt or use for operating cash. Some need a new combine or tractor, and it might go toward that. And subsequently, it could add to the cash a buyer has in their pocket that they can deploy toward a land purchase, so it’s going to cover a broad spectrum.”

The bridge payment announcement coincides with the busiest time of year with higher volumes of land sales.

“It’s really active this time of year. We see a lot of land sales between October and March. We’re in the thick of it now,” Schadegg says. “The pipeline is full as we get into January and February for land sales.”

Steve Breuere from Peoples Company tells Paul Neiffer on the “Top Producer Podcast” about 40% of their land sales volume happens in the fourth quarter of the year.

Before the bridge payment announcement, Farmers National released their 2026 Farm Input Outlook. According to that report, input costs are projected to increase slightly compared to last year. Fertilizer prices are the biggest driver, most notably nitrogen. There will be modest increases in chemicals, financing costs, equipment and labor. Categories showing flat to small increases include seed, fuel and land.

Specific to cash rent, Schadegg calls out farmland in Colorado, western Nebraska and southwestern Kansas for illustrating elevated pressure on those rates because of increased input costs. However, more central areas of the country Iowa, the Dakotas and Minnesota aren’t as pressured.

Government Threatens Seizure of 85-yr-old’s Entire Farm for Irrigating Wrong Field

Wed, 10 Dec 2025 14:02:45 GMT

The government is preparing to take the private land and legacy of an 85-year-old farmer for the crime of irrigation. Why? He watered his crops without regulatory approval.

“I didn’t use a drop past my legal rights, but because I put it on the wrong field, I’m a criminal and the state wants to take everything I have,” Bob Greiff says. “It’s all about control. And power.”

In response to Greiff’s water “violations,” the Washington State Department of Ecology levied a series of fines totaling $121,000 and slapped a lien on his property. The department issued press releases championing its actions, and portrayed Greiff as an environmental outlaw. Notably, Ecology officials are not penalizing Greiff for the amount of water pumped, but rather, the location applied. Put it where we say, or else.

“This is the worst abuse of power by Ecology over a farmer I’ve seen in my career,” says water consultant Tim Reierson. “Why the state chose to issue massive fines instead of permits is unexplainable. And the more facts you know, the worse it gets. Ecology made it impossible for Bob to be legal and still survive on that farm. It’s cruel. I can back everything I say.”

Greiff insists the state’s measures are a “nightmare dream you don’t wake up from.”

“Why do they care what crops or acres I put my legally obtained water on?” he asks. “How did things ever get this crazy for farmers?”

Make or Break
On a bare-bones 160-acre (120 arable) farm outside Deer Park, in northeast Washington’s Spokane County, Bob Greiff rotates alfalfa, oats, hay, and barley. His fields are evenly split by a road—two 80-acre tracts to the south and north of the ribbon. Greiff rubs pennies to make dollars: His last tractor purchase was in 1992—for $70,000. “We traded a number of even older tractors just to get the price down to what we could afford,” he recalls.

Deploying conservative farming practices on relatively tiny acreage, Greiff’s operation is akin to a step back in time. Describing Greiff as old-school is an understatement.

In 1939, Greiff’s father, Willie, purchased an initial portion of the creek-side property and planted seed potatoes. A decade later, in 1949, Willie secured a water right and began irrigating.

“I had a set amount of water I was allowed to use, but they said I was in big trouble if I used it on any row except what they allowed,” Greiff explains.

(Photo by Ray Aguirre)

“My dad bought that first 80 by the creek and then bought another 80 across the road,” Greiff explains. “In about 1953, he ran a pipe under the road and started pumping to both fields because the second one had more cultivated land and was level.”

Willie watered on both sides of the road until his death in 1991. Greiff continued watering in the same manner. Potatoes were replaced by alfalfa and grain. Regardless of crop, Greiff’s soil produces limited yield without moisture. Each year, as his crops rotate on a given piece of dirt, he requires flexibility to add more water in some areas and less in others. The logistical dance is make or break: For example, Greiff typically grows one crop of alfalfa dryland and three irrigated, and he grows 50-bushel dryland wheat and 100-plus-bushel irrigated wheat.

Legally, Greiff holds three water rights totaling 136 acre-feet per year annual volume for irrigation on 37 acres north of the dividing road. “I’ve always pumped from our water rights and survived on this dirt since I was a boy,” Greiff exclaims. “Now they tell me they’ll kick me off my own land. For what? Because I irrigated the wrong acres without permission and owe them $121,000.”

“Sound crazy? It is. One day I’m pumping water just like I have for 70 years, and the next day I’m the target of people who know nothing about farming. Nothing.”

In 2019, Greiff’s mailbox clinked with a snail-mail message from the Washington State Department of Ecology. Mr. Greiff, you’re irrigating on the south side the road, but we don’t find a record of a water right for you to do that.

(Significantly, Ecology made recent headlines in 2023 after fining King Ranch in Grant and Douglas counties almost $268,000 for alleged wetlands destruction. Ecology referred King Ranch to the state attorney general for a criminal investigation. USDA is backing King Ranch.)

“It all started with a letter,” Greiff says, his voice trailing off in disbelief. “I had a set amount of water I was allowed to use, but they said I was in big trouble if I used it on any row except what they allowed.”

Gone to Hell
In July 2019, Greiff knocked on the front door of water consultant Tim Reierson’s home in Yakima, roughly three hours distant. Seated at Reierson’s dining room table, Greiff told his tale.

At the helm of Streamline Water Consulting, and highly esteemed in the irrigation industry, Reierson navigates both agriculture rows and the paperwork maze of water rights. Prior to private practice, he worked for seven years (1989-1996) at Ecology in the Water Rights Division. Translated: Reierson understands nuance on both sides of the table.

Reierson researched Greiff’s water rights and farm history.

“If they want to destroy a farmer because he put his water on unapproved acres, then I’m not gonna run and hide,” Greiff says.

(Photo by Ray Aguirre)

“The research showed Bob’s water rights don’t cover south of the road. Ecology doesn’t seem to register the significance of irrigating in plain sight for decades, but I found an explanation for it. In 1968, Bob filed to irrigate both north and south, and it was approved in 1975 . But when Ecology certified the right in 1983, they left out the south part, possibly in error.”

“I don’t think Bob read the certificate fine print,” Reierson continues. “He thought it was fixed and farmed it 50 years. Ecology has this false narrative they’ve spread around that he’s a bad actor. Bob Greiff actually wants to follow the rules. That’s why he contacted me.”

“People need to understand how important this farm is, and Bob’s legacy. It’s subsistence farming and water-efficient to keep pumping costs down. Classic rotation practices; hand labor moving wheel lines; and the orchestrated timing and movement of limited water. He’s a treasure and so is that farm.”

Reierson’s remedy was straightforward: Follow the rulebook and get Greiff legally clear to irrigate the south acreage. Once approved, Greiff could take his 136-acre feet and “spread” it to the south acreage. Same amount of water—but poured thinner across more acres.

According to Washington State law, a grower is required to adhere to a single irrigation program for two years before “spreading” is allowed. Greiff willingly jumped through the onerous regulatory hoop.

“I asked Bob to follow the statutory requirements exactly to qualify for increasing acres, all while still using the same amount of water,” Reierson details. “There’s a calculation called the ACQ, the annual consumptive quantity, based on proving your annual beneficial use. It averages the highest two years in the past five. All we needed was two years of water use on the 37 acres in the north, file the applications, provide all the supporting documentation and technical work, and get the approvals. This is what I do for a living.”

“Bob did what I asked in 2020 and 2021, irrigating an alfalfa stand in the north. Alfalfa hay has deep roots. It takes lots of water and then gives multiple cuttings. He even had bad luck with a pump going down that hurt his average. He was willing to give up some water rights to get approved quickly.”

“One thing for certain, this was sure as hell never about water or the environment for them (Ecology),” Greiff says.

(Photo by Ray Aguirre)

In 2022, with regulatory boxes ticked, Reierson presented all the paperwork to the Spokane County Water Conservancy Board and gained approval in August that year. Conservancy shipped their decisions to Ecology for a maximum 75-day review period. Under Washington State law , if Ecology does nothing, Conservancy approvals automatically become final.

After two years of yield losses on his south-of-the-road acreage to satisfy the state’s regulations, Greiff was on the cusp of gaining permission to spread water.

And then everything went to hell.

“Ecology intervened on day 58 and that’s when it got surreal,” Reierson says. “At first, they said the water rights couldn’t be overlapped, which is nonsense, but they also said Greiff wouldn’t be able to farm that many acres with the amount of rights he had. The power records on his irrigation pumps proved he did. To tell Greiff how he can and can’t farm is insulting—and embarrassing for Ecology.”

Bring Me a Rock
Conservancy had accepted Reierson’s irrigation plan on Aug. 22, 2022, opening a path for Greiff to irrigate on both sides of the road and spread the water onto all irrigated acres.

However, on Nov. 9, Conservancy called for a meeting with Ecology, recalls Kevin Freeman, then chair of Conservancy. “There’s not funding for us to hire our own private consultants to review those applications. We’re a volunteer board, so we rely on Ecology’s technical expertise related to the applications. Regarding Mr. Greiff, we had questions about the technical aspects of how water spreading was to occur between groundwater and surface rights. Turns out, Ecology didn’t agree with Mr. Greiff’s consultant’s (Reierson) interpretation of how the water was to be spread and if that was appropriate.”

“I’ve always tried to do things right on this farm and I never dreamed my own state would treat me or anyone else like this,” Greiff says.

(Photo by Ray Aguirre)

“We never approved the application,” says Freeman, a geologist and a hydrogeologist working mainly in lower Yakima Valley with long legs in private consulting—35 years of experience. “This was a technical disagreement at the state level between Ecology and Mr. Greiff and his consultant. It was apparent that that difference was strong enough that Ecology would reject the application. We felt it was better for Mr. Greiff to work directly with Ecology.”

Six days later, on Nov. 15, public records show Conservancy voted to withdraw its decisions, stating for each: “The board intends to revise and resubmit for Ecology review the record of decision and report of examination for the subject application.”

Reierson explained his consent, “I initially agreed to that step, for the board to withdraw its formal approvals from August 2022, based on the promise a compromise could be found with Ecology. Plus, we had no leverage, meaning no money or time to fight Ecology in court if they denied the board’s approvals. But when Ecology intervened, what followed was an exhausting game of ‘bring me a rock.’ ”

“That’s where clients without wealth would go broke,” Rierson adds, “but I’d stopped charging Bob by this time so it didn’t work.”

In early February 2023, Reierson completed a third technical report. He thought he had finally broken through. He had not. What happened next was fatal to Greiff’s compliance efforts.

“The 2023 irrigation season was approaching. On February 13, the Conservancy Board held a meeting without telling me,” Reierson notes. “They asked for technical support about ACQ from Ecology. Herman Spangle, the liaison to the board, and his supervisor Jaime Short attended. At the end of that meeting the board voted to drop the applications completely. I only know details because I did a public records request for their emails.”

“After that, the applications went to Ecology as last resort for approval. They could have approved them in April. Instead, Ecology sat on the applications and waited Bob out, then fined him in June. Then, as if it couldn’t get worse, Ecology rejected his applications based on his noncompliance, and kept adding fines. What the hell?”

“I even sent them an email four months before that final rejection, begging them to issue the permits, not fines. It was short. I remember it saying ‘Please...Be human. Be humane.’ And here we are.”

“Comply or Die”
Technical excuses are a dime a dozen, Greiff says. “It’s always the same story with the agencies and departments,” Greiff says. “They got a million reasons why I’ve done something wrong, but they don’t want to talk about the plain truth that I’m just trying to spread my water rights over my crops and that I’ve never stolen any water.”

Ecology personnel place blame for the permitting rejection on Greiff and Reierson.

“They sent us something and we reviewed it and got back to the Conservancy Board and said, ‘Hey, you don’t actually have the information you need to make this recommendation,” explains Jaime Short, Section Manager for Ecology’s Water Resource Program in the Eastern Regional Office. “Like, just the ingredients aren’t there.’”

“So, they decided, and this was all in consultation with Mr. Greiff’s consultant (Reierson), to withdraw their recommendation. He was going to get them some additional information. And then that did not occur,” Short adds. “So, eventually we kind of kicked the applications back to him because we didn’t have what we needed to process them.”

In response to Greiff’s water “violations,” Ecology levied a series of fines totaling $121,000 and placed a lien on his property.

(Photo by Ray Aguirre)

Brook Beeler, Eastern Regional Director of Ecology, echoes Short: “I think the crux of the issue here is when Mr. Greiff looked at his quantity or how much he’d been using, he wanted to put it in a different place than was identified in his right. And he started to work through that process with his Conservancy Board application. And then again, following up with us.”

And that’s where we told him, ‘We do not have enough information from you to be able to make that change for you to expand your acreage or to put this water that you claim you have on additional acreage.’ … He may have had enough to do what he was attempting to do, but he didn’t share that information with us in a way where we could make that approval. Instead of working with us, he chose to ignore us and continue to irrigate illegally.”

Reierson contradicts the claims made by Short and Beeler.

“The only ingredient missing was Ecology as a good faith partner. It was a continual process trying to answer endless objections. Not saying all their comments were wrong but on fundamentals it was baseless. Ecology management parroted staff instead of putting them in line on the nonsense. We didn’t have time for games but it was never enough, so then it all just tasted bad. And I felt sick knowing the original approvals were completely valid and I’d fallen for a trap going along with them being withdrawn.”

In many conservation quarters, Greiff’s desire to spread his water allotment over greater acres—yet still maintain yield—would be applauded.

“Not with Ecology for Mr. Greiff,” Reierson says. “They said different, but in reality they resisted Bob’s efforts to comply. Jaime Short told me Bob didn’t have enough water rights to cover the spreading acres. Another staffer said Bob’s crop rotation explanation was ‘weak’. It’s all in their emails.”

“Bob knew how to navigate farming, but not how to navigate the hurdles they set up. Even I couldn’t navigate them. In the end it about broke me to tell Bob, ‘I can’t help you anymore, I’ve tried everything. They’re flat out against you, or me, or both.’”

Following Ecology’s rejection, Greiff turned on the water. He began irrigating the south acres. “They left an old man no choice,” Greiff says. “I’d been without water for several years because of all this craziness. So, I started irrigating south of the road—right where they said it was illegal, but that’s where I make my money and that’s where I survive. And the whole time, I never used a drop more of water than I was supposed to. Didn’t matter. They wanted to cut my pocketbook in half, at first. Now, they want my farm. Their policy is, ‘Comply or die.’”

Bad Farmer
In response to his renewed irrigation, Greiff received a succession of letters from Ecology. Each time, he wrote “Return to Sender” and dropped the unopened envelopes back in the post.

“Hell, I even got letters from the Attorney General’s office in Olympia and sent those back, too. I didn’t know what kind of threats were in them, and I didn’t care. I wasn’t stealing any water. I wasn’t looking for trouble. I just wanted to be left alone to run a farm like my father and grandfather did.”

Freeman acknowledges that no theft of water theft by Greiff was alleged. “I feel Mr. Greiff’s pain because a number of my clients in the lower Yakima Valley are dairy farmers. And the small guys are just getting roasted. And I get that Mr. Greiff is a small farmer. We never thought this was about him pulling more than his legal amount of water—just that he’s not spreading it right. This should never have developed the way it did.”

Ecology issued a cease-and-desist order in June 2023, followed by a $6,000 fine in June 2024; and a $15,000 fine in August 2024, along with a press release regarding Greiff’s irrigation, telling the public: “attempts to help Greiff comply with regulations were unsuccessful … Additional unpermitted irrigation continued.”

A year later, in September 2025, Ecology levied a $100,000 fine, along with a judgement lien obtained by the Attorney General’s Office in Spokane County Superior Court. Again, Ecology issued a press release : “For years, we’ve seen repeated violations and a disregard for bringing this property into compliance … We’ve made multiple attempts to provide technical assistance and achieve voluntary compliance, yet illegal use continues.”

However, neither of the two press releases noted that Greiff was not exceeding his water rights or stealing water. A neutral observer, lacking context, might assume Greiff was an environmental criminal. The releases also did not explain that Greiff hired professional help to comply with the law. Additionally, the releases made no mention of Ecology’s involvement with Conservancy to block approvals for Greiff.

“These public portrayals of Bob Greiff as a bad actor and bad farmer are false,” Reierson says. “I guided him through all the statutory requirements for receiving the approvals, and he did everything required. The only bad actor in this situation is the Department of Ecology. They influenced the Water Conservancy Board to help defeat Bob’s plan for compliance with the law.”

Here I Will Be
As Greiff faces the prospect of farm and legacy loss, a solution is maddeningly just out of reach. All Greiff needs to legally spread his water onto his farmland on the south side of the road is a paperwork change from Ecology. Otherwise, his water rights can only be poured onto the north side of the road.

“I wasn’t looking for trouble,” Greiff says. “I just wanted to be left alone to run a farm like my father and grandfather did.”

(Photo by Ray Aguirre)

Absurd, Greiff insists. “I can’t thank Tim Reierson enough, but no matter what he did to help me and go by the book, the Department of Ecology dragged their feet. One thing for certain, this was sure as hell never about water or the environment for them. Think about it: I’m still allowed to use the exact same amount of water.”

Freeman believes Conservancy made the right call. However, his confidence doesn’t extend beyond: “I don’t know what the mechanisms were regarding what happened after we were done with our review. Is Ecology making an example out of him? I felt like if everyone could sit down in a room together, this would have gotten done, but I don’t know what happened, or how it’s gotten to this extreme point. Ecology would say they’re not being heavy-handed, but it now certainly appears that way to many people.”

“I think there are things Ecology could have done differently and things Mr. Greiff and his consultant could have done differently,” Freeman adds. “But for a situation that is supposed to only be about how Mr. Greiff is applying water to his fields to end up with a lien and potential seizure—that’s extremely surprising, and I won’t lay the blame at Mr. Greiff’s feet.”

The present impasse should never have developed, Reierson concurs. “Without Ecology’s interference, Bob’s first approval back in 2022 would have become final and he would have been irrigating just fine in 2023, 2024, and 2025—with no fines.”

“As far as correcting this it’s an easy solution because all the work’s been done. Ecology has the administrative power unilaterally, right now, to rescind its orders and fines, vacate the lien, reinstate and approve the applications. Done. It’s a safe bet they won’t do it on their own, so we’ll need a state legislator to take up the cause. Bob would welcome an independent review. Then, I think Ecology, higher up the ladder, might see the light.”

When the 2026 crop season arrives, Greiff intends to irrigate—on both sides of the road.

“We’ve been here since 1939. Come spring next year, just as my father and grandfather did, I’m going to plant like normal. And when May comes, I’m going to turn the sprinklers on again to survive wherever my crops need the water. I’ve always tried to do things right on this farm and I never dreamed my own state would treat me or anyone else like this.”

“I didn’t use a drop past my legal rights, but because I put it on the wrong field, I’m a criminal and the state wants to take everything I have,” says Greiff.

(Photo by Ray Aguirre)

“I don’t believe the people in these departments know what irrigation, yield, crops, or rotation are,” Greiff insists. “It’s a big secret that no one is supposed to say: They don’t understand what farming is.”

Will Ecology shut down Greiff’s operation? “We can’t certainly speak for, you know, what lies ahead for him and how he continues to operate his farm or as a producer,” says Director Beeler. “I will say if he continues to illegally irrigate those acres, I think we have to, we have to look at what tools do we have left in our toolbox to again ensure compliance.”

“The state wants people to think I’m an outlaw,” Greiff concludes. “They don’t want people to know the true story. If they want to destroy a farmer because he put his water on unapproved acres, then I’m not gonna run and hide. Here I am. Here I will be.”

For further resources on the interaction between Washington State and Bob Greiff, see Tim Reierson’s timeline and document resource .

For more articles from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Farmer Unearths Lost Treasure, Solves WW2 Mystery

New House Bill Pushes For Fertilizer Price Transparency

Thu, 20 Nov 2025 19:57:32 GMT

A companion bill to the Fertilizer Research Act has been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

The House version, sponsored by U.S. Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (R-IA), echoes the same goal as the Senate’s Fertilizer Research Act of 2025 (S.2808) – to provide U.S. farmers with more clarity and certainty regarding fertilizer costs and supply.

“America’s farmers are being squeezed by high fertilizer costs and low commodity prices, making it incredibly difficult to afford the inputs needed to maintain strong yields,” Hinson said in a statement on Thursday, noting that farmers tell her they need greater fertilizer price transparency and stability.

The legislation, if passed, would require the USDA to conduct a study on the competition and trends in the fertilizer market and their subsequent impact on fertilizer prices and then provide a comprehensive report of the agency’s findings.

The study would examine market competition and trends, the impact of these trends on fertilizer prices, the size and value of the U.S. market over the past 25 years, and the impact of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on retail fertilizer prices. It would also assess market concentration and the regulatory environment.

Within one year of the bill’s passage, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Economic Research Service, would be required to issue a report on USDA’s website regarding the U.S. fertilizer industry.

Mark Mueller , an Iowa farmer and president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, had said during a Senate hearing last month that increases in fertilizer costs are “crushing corn growers” in Iowa and other states.

“We need to assess the fertilizer industry to better understand pricing practices, tariffs and the exertion of market power by companies within the industry,” Mueller added. “The continued commitment to highlighting the impact of fertilizer prices on corn farmers does not go unnoticed by Iowa’s corn growers.”

Co-sponsors of the bipartisan House bill included Republican Randy Feenstra of Iowa, and Democrats Nikki Budzinski of Illinois and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington.

Budzinski noted, “Fertilizer is an essential tool for farmers to maximize their crop yields, but they often lack insight into how fertilizer prices are determined – making it harder to balance their books. I’m proud to introduce this common-sense, bipartisan legislation to give our farmers more transparency and ensure that farm inputs are priced fairly.”

Hinson said that the House bill is supported by the American Soybean Association, the National Farmers Union, the Iowa Farmers Union, the Iowa Farm Bureau, the Iowa Corn Growers Association, and the Iowa Soybean Association.

Your next read: Fertilizer Prices Under Fire: Monopoly or Markets to Blame?

New WOTUS Proposal Could Reduce Red Tape for Farmers and Ranchers

Mon, 17 Nov 2025 18:01:45 GMT

Farmers and ranchers could soon face fewer regulatory hurdles when working near waterways, as EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers released a new proposal on Nov. 17 to redefine “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The agencies say the proposed rule is designed to bring long-requested clarity to what features fall under federal jurisdiction potentially reducing permitting uncertainty for agriculture, landowners and rural businesses.

The proposed rule can be found on the Federal Register . The public can submit comments online there or via Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. During the announcement event on Nov. 17, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin urged the public to submit comments.

The definition of WOTUS determines when producers must secure permits for projects that could affect surface water quality, including common activities such as building terraces, installing drainage or expanding livestock operations. EPA officials say the new proposal aims to align fully with the Supreme Court’s Sackett decision and prevent farmers from needing lawyers or consultants simply to determine whether a water feature on their land is federally regulated.

The proposal follows Zeldin’s promise in March to launch the biggest deregulatory action in history and a series of listening sessions in April and May that asked states, tribes, industry and agriculture to weigh in on WOTUS needs.

Clearer Definition After Years of Confusion

Zeldin and Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle emphasize the rule is designed to be clear, durable and commonsense.

Key elements include:

Defined terms such as relatively permanent, continuous surface connection, and tributary to outline which waters qualify under the Clean Water Act.
A requirement that jurisdictional tributaries must have predictable, consistent flow to traditional navigable waters.
Wetlands protections are limited to wetlands that physically touch and are indistinguishable from regulated waters for a consistent duration each year.
Reaffirmed exclusions important to agriculture, including prior converted cropland, certain ditches and waste treatment systems.
A new exclusion for groundwater.
Locally-familiar terminology, such as “wet season,” to help determine whether water features meet regulatory thresholds.

EPA says these changes are intended to reduce uncertainty that has stemmed from years of shifting definitions across administrations.

Impact of WOTUS Proposal on Agriculture

For producers, the proposal could simplify compliance by narrowing which water features fall under federal oversight and confirming exclusions that many farm groups have long advocated.

Zeldin says the aim is “protecting the nation’s navigable waters from pollution” while preventing unnecessary burdens on farmers and ranchers. He criticizes past Democratic administrations for broad interpretations that, in his view, extended federal reach to features that did not warrant regulation.

Farm groups have argued for years that unclear or overly broad definitions can lead to significant costs, delays and legal risks when planning conservation work, drainage projects or infrastructure improvements. A more consistent rule could reduce project backlogs and limit case-by-case determinations that often slow progress during planting, construction or livestock expansion.

“We’ve seen WOTUS definitions, guidance and legal arguments change with each administration,” said Garrett Hawkins, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, during the May 1 EPA listening session for agriculture . He adds: “farmers, land owners and small businesses are the ones who suffer the most when we don’t have clear rules.”

Several of those who gave testimony and public comment during the ag listening session argued that farmers and ranchers, who already struggle with unpredictable markets and tight margins, shouldn’t have to hire experts to identify elements of their own land.

“A practical WOTUS definition will allow the average landowner — not an engineer, not an attorney, not a wetland specialist — to walk out on their property, see a water feature and make, at minimum, a preliminary determination about whether a feature is federally jurisdictional,” says Kim Brackett, vice president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who also gave testimony in May.

Alignment With the Sackett Decision

After the Supreme Court’s 2023 Sackett v. EPA ruling , which restricted federal authority over many wetlands, the agencies say the previous WOTUS definition no longer aligned with the law. EPA already issued a memo earlier this year clarifying limits on jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands. The newly proposed rule is the next step in that process.

The proposed rule focuses on relatively permanent bodies of water — streams, rivers, lakes and oceans — and wetlands that are physically connected to those waters. Seasonal and regional variations are incorporated, including waters that flow consistently during the wetter months.

The current situation is a regulatory patchwork. Due to litigation that followed the January 2023 WOTUS rule, which was considered in the Sackett decision, different states are following different rules. Currently, 24 states, mostly the coastal and Great Lakes states, are operating on the 2023 rule, while the other 26 states, mostly those in center and in the Southeast, are operating on pre-2015 WOTUS rule.

Oversight Rests With State and Tribes

A major theme of the proposal is cooperative federalism, giving more authority to states and tribes to manage local land and water resources. EPA says the rule preserves necessary federal protections while recognizing states and tribal governments are best positioned to oversee many smaller or isolated water features.

Sections 101b and 510 of the CWA are key structural examples of the concept of cooperative federalism. The sections give states and tribes the right to set standards and issue permits for federal activities that could discharge pollutants into a water of the U.S. within the state or territory. The most common example of this are 404 dredge and fill permits.

This focus on cooperative federalism was the main chorus of the EPA’s listening session for states , held April 29, especially as it concerns wetlands.

“If more wetlands are excluded from WOTUS, then certain federal projects would not require a section 401 water quality certification by the states,” noted Jennifer Congdon, director of federal affairs for New York Department of Environmental Conservation, during the states’ listening session. She argues that such a situation could impair water quality within a state, thus violating states’ rights under the CWA.

What Happens Next

The proposed rule is available online for public comment on the Federal Register and Regulations.gov on or before Jan. 5, 2026. EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers will hold two hybrid public meetings, and details for submitting comments or registering to speak will be available on EPA’s website .

After the comment period, the agencies plan to move quickly toward a final rule.

“Once the rule is finalized, it typically takes effect 60 days after publication in the Federal Register pursuant to Congressional Review Act requirements,” the EPA press office told The Packer earlier this summer .

Based on these potential timelines, a new — potentially final — WOTUS rule could take effect as early as early March.

Beef Industry Chaos: Tight Supplies, Strong Consumer Demand and Political Interference

Thu, 13 Nov 2025 19:42:19 GMT

The current state of the cattle market and beef industry has been described as chaotic. “There’s chaos in cattle,” as Chip Flory, AgriTalk host, put it.

The industry turmoil follows recent statements made by President Donald Trump regarding the need to lower beef prices as well as his request for the Department of Justice to immediately begin an investigation into meatpackers for driving up the price of beef.

Derrell Peel, Extension livestock marketing specialist from Oklahoma State University, affirms these are unique times, emphasizing while political factors have always indirectly influenced agriculture, it’s unprecedented for the cattle and beef markets to be at the center of direct political debate.

On a recent AgriTalk segment, Peel points out the inherent biological and production constraints of the cattle industry — particularly the fixed timeline to raise cattle — make quick fixes impossible. Both Flory and Peel stress that no political policy can shorten the cattle production process; any effective supply response requires patience and long-term adjustment.

Packers Under Fire

The concept of industry consolidation and foreign packer ownership has long drawn scrutiny with frequent government investigations. Peel says highly concentrated industries such as beef packing have been targets for skepticism and regulatory attention for over a century, to the point suspicion of packers is almost “a cultural thing” within segments of the industry.

He characterizes the latest call as another attempt to target convenient scapegoats rather than addressing deeper systemic realities of supply and demand.

“The reason we have the industry structure we do is because the economies of size and cost efficiencies are such a powerful economic force,” Peels explains.

He confirms researchers have long studied market power, and while concentration does have a small negative price impact for producers, the efficiency and cost-savings from large-scale firms more than compensate. These benefits, he says, keep cattle prices higher for producers and beef prices lower for consumers than they would be with a less efficient structure.

Dissecting the economics of margin markets Peels explains why price changes in different parts of the beef supply chain — cow-calf, feeders, packers and retailers — don’t move in lockstep. He uses a “bungee cord” analogy to illustrate the complex, dynamic and time-lagged interactions linking cattle prices at the farm with retail beef prices.

“All cattle prices and beef prices are ultimately connected, but they’re not connected with a stick or a chain,” Peel summarizes.” They’re connected with a bungee cord. There’s just an enormous amount of dynamics in this thing.”

Regarding the foreign ownership debate, Peel says there is no evidence foreign ownership alters packer behavior within the U.S. marketplace. He emphasizes foreign firms have made large investments in U.S. facilities and continue to operate them by the same market logic that would govern domestic ownership.

He also points out it is unclear who else would be in a position to make such significant investments if these foreign companies were not involved. This pragmatic view suggests the ownership issue might be less important than is commonly believed, at least concerning everyday operations and market outcomes.

A Lot Hinges on Rebuilding the Cow Herd

In his latest article, “ All Bets are Off ,” Peel says: “The latest edition in the torrent of recent political attentions directed at the cattle and beef industry includes allegations of market manipulation against the beef packing industry. Beef packers are the one segment that has been most negatively impacted in the current market, incurring huge losses due to poor margins and limited cattle supplies.”

(Meat Institute)

Peel reports packers have been losing enormous amounts of money for about the past 18 to 24 months. According to the Meat Institute, packer margins slipped into the red in September 2024. Through the week ending Oct. 4, 2025, packer margins were a negative $126.50 per head, up slightly from a year earlier at a negative $125.65 per head, according to Sterling Profit Tracker. The outlook for the year is a negative $165.96 per head packer margin.

“There’s just simply not enough cattle for them to operate at cost efficient capacities,” Peel explains.

This negative trend was anticipated — the reduced supply of cattle has made it difficult for packing plants to function at cost-efficient capacities, leading to the accumulation of operating losses. Peel points out the combination of low unit margins and insufficient cattle supplies challenges the economic viability of packers, further illustrating the complexity of the current environment.

This decline in inventory is not the result of a single factor but is driven by several years of drought and other market pressures. It is clear high beef and cattle prices are a result of these tight supplies and, according to Peel, these high prices are likely to persist for several years. The industry simply cannot turn around production levels quickly, and it will take time — a matter of years, not months — for conditions to normalize.

“Using logic that only works in the office of a politician, packers are supposedly wielding unacceptable market power while paying record high cattle prices and artificially raising beef prices … but not enough to avoid losing a couple hundred dollars on every animal they process — certainly many millions of dollars,” Peel says. “If beef packers had any significant ability to exercise market power, I am certain that we would not have record high cattle prices and packers would not be losing money.”

Peel suggests the federal government attacks on beef packers are aided and supported by a vocal minority of the cattle industry and a few sympathetic politicians who view packers as a perennial villain and always worthy of attack anytime the opportunity is presented.

“The timing of such attacks this time is particularly puzzling as dismantling the packing industry would certainly jeopardize current record high cattle prices and the best economic returns most producers have ever enjoyed,” Peels says. “I guess some cowboys just can’t stand prosperity.”

R-CALF CEO Bill Bullard says the cattle market is fundamentally broken citing years of an inverse relationship between falling cattle prices and increasing retail beef prices when the only ingredient in beef is cattle. Read more about his perspective.

Patience not Politics

Beef and cattle prices, Peel notes, are historically high, a result of industry-wide low cattle inventory. Rebuilding the nation’s cow herd will be a long, slow process, keeping prices elevated for an extended period. And Peel says there is no definitive evidence producers are saving heifers to start the rebuilding process.

“2025 may prove to be technically the cyclical low, but 2026 is going to be barely bigger, if it is, and no growth in 2026 and probably none in 2027 ... it’s 2028 into 2029 before that turns into increased beef production,” Peel predicts.

He summarizes neither regulatory nor political action will can speed up the rebuilding process. It will take years of concerted effort, market healing and stability before the industry can expect a meaningful rebound in herd numbers and production — a reality that requires patience across the industry.

“There is absolutely nothing anybody can do to make beef prices go down, or cattle prices, other than maybe tear up the industry completely,” Peels says. “And if we tear up the industry, it’ll make cattle prices go down, but it won’t make beef prices go down. It’ll make beef prices go even higher for consumers and the only way to fix this is to give the industry time to rebuild, and that’s going to take two to four years if we ever get started.”

He says a majority of cattle producers understand the beef industry is extremely complex and all segments are critical and essential.

“Though the outcome of current political actions is uncertain, the potential for long-term harm to the industry is substantial,” Peel says. “Anytime politics trumps economics, the strong supply and demand fundamentals that have determined the outlook for the industry to this point become irrelevant. Expectations for prices and production going forward are now completely clouded…therefore… all bets are off.”

Your Next Read: You Be The Judge: The Big Bad Beef Packers Are On Trial

What Row Crop Farmers Can Expect, Rabo Gives Harvest Outlook

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 15:56:40 GMT

More volatility and at least one to two more years of challenged/negative margins. That is the summary of the harvest outlook from Rabo analysts.

As Steve Nicholson, grains and oilseeds analyst, points out the average price cycle for row crop farmgate prices ranges from 25 to 35 years since 1900 to the present.

“When we think about that 25 to 35 year cycle, it helps us understand what’s happening and the movement of prices over time, and how we’ve moved each time to new plateaus,” he says. “So we are now in year 17 of the current cycle. And what’s important to note that is different than past cycles is the range was typically $1/bu to $1.50/bu in each cycle, now in our current cycle the price range is $4/bu. The range is bigger. There’s more volatility.”

(Rabobank)

Nicholson says fundamentally the volatility is driven by supply and demand shocks. for most crops.

“Take corn and wheat, for example, exporters are holding a smaller share of stocks in the world, and there’s a similar story for rice,” Nicholson says. “Soybeans are the exception, as the two big producers have big stocks being held by those exporters.”

As for stocks-to-use ratio, Nicholson says corn and wheat are at comfortable levels but in a multi-year decline, and as such when there’s any production shortfall, the potential price volatility increases and the market can move quickly.

As for how this translates to farm gate economics, Nicholson and his colleagues say their modeling shows corn and soybeans production margins return to breakeven or positive in 2027/2028 marketing year. The main culprit dragging down margins is “stickier than usual input costs.”

“We’re still two crops from breakeven,” Nicholson says.

Sam Taylor, ag inputs analyst at Rabo says since this time last year there’s been a notable dislocation between costs and returns.

(Rabobank)

“Fertilizer has kept us awake for several years,” he says. “But through 2020 to 2023, the anomaly of high fertilizer was matched by commodity price run ups. That has dissipated into the current circumstances where since May of last year we’ve had a sequence of one after another of compounding geopolitical events: gas supplies out of northern Africa, Chinese limits on exports of urea and phosphates, issues in the Stait of Hormuz, and companies limiting exports and curtailing production.”

Taylor says the current affordability indexes for fertilizer should be resulting in demand destruction, but there’s no evidence of farmers cutting back on inputs.

“For example with phosphates, the affordability index since 2022 has gotten worse. It’s a terrible situation for US growers. It doesn’t fit into our traditional context of displaying it,” Taylor says. “It hasn’t been as bad as 2008, which had a different dynamic as we had credit issues and affordability issues. But then farmers cut back on phosphates by 25%, which created an ability to correct the market. Prices corrected back to the mean.”

Taylor says to see a similar price correction, demand would have to decrease by 20 to 25%.

“We are creating a moat in trade and tariffs. U.S. farmers are paying a 10% price premium on MAP as a result of countervailing duties,” he says. “We have become near enough self-supplying in MAP as long as we don’t export any we can make our ends meet. We have headwinds going into 2026. It’s not just government subsidies that have created confusion to the market, but the tariffs and taxes have impacted the cost of production for U.S. growers.”

Taylor says there’s a delay and distortion in the market signals caused by the government interventions, which supports his idea that prices will remain higher for longer. This includes not only phosphates but nitrogen as well.

Higher production costs are weighing on the farmer balance sheet.

(Rabobank)

“If we go two or three years back, folks were pulling 20% to 30% of their operating lines. And now that number is 50% pulling off that operating line,” Nicholson says. “They need the financing because they aren’t getting the returns. And we’ve already see them pull back—pretty dramatically—on equipment purchasing for example.”

Owen Wagner, ag policy analyst for Rabo, says in assessing the levers to pull agriculture out of this lack of profitability are indicating the current government supports for farmers are potentially delaying the correction.

“More of these government supports are insurance subsidies and ad-hoc payments, and as such risk management programs are melding into income supports,” Wagner says. “The supports out of Washington are necessary in the short term, but what are the long term impacts of the well intentioned policies?”

Comparing 2025 production costs for soybeans in Iowa vs. Mato Grosso, Brazil, Wagner says it would take a 10% decline in land rental rates for Iowa’s production costs to be competitive.

(Rabobank)

As for 2026 production, Nicholson says the current models point to 2 to 3 million less acres of corn, with soybean acres changing day-to-day.

Farmers Say They Shoulder The Cost Of Mergers In Seed, Fertilizer Industries

Wed, 29 Oct 2025 21:43:26 GMT

Testimony from farmers, economists and legislators during a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting Tuesday painted a stark picture of the challenges row crop growers are up against to stay in business as input prices continue to climb and profit margins are severely squeezed.

The hearing exposed a critical challenge for U.S. production agriculture: as a handful of corporations controls more of the agricultural supply chain for seed and fertilizer, farmers say they are left with fewer choices, higher costs and diminishing control over their own operations.

Noah Coppess, a fifth-generation farmer based in Cedar County, Iowa, shared his personal observations on the industry’s transformation over the past few decades.

“The reality in farming today is we’re price takers rather than price makers,” he said, highlighting how farmers have lost bargaining power as agricultural manufacturers and suppliers have become increasingly concentrated.

“It’s further complicated by lack of price transparency, with farmers forced to operate at the liberty of the market at the front and back end,” Coppess added. “I have concerns with our input and equipment supply chains and their ability to manipulate our costs.”

‘The Cost Of Fertilizer Is Crushing Growers’

Coppess also told the committee how farmers are routinely asked to prepay for fertilizer three to six months prior to a needed application, and up to 14 months before their crop will be harvested.

“Many of the contracts are written with a narrow window to get the products applied, or the contract expires and the input is repriced at a higher value, or monthly fees can be applied to extend the contract,” he said.

Coppess noted that phosphate has become “a bare minimum usage fertilizer” on his farm due to the rising cost. “We have invested significant capital and time trying to find other ways to manage our phosphorus needs, as the cost of this input is at a point of negative return,” he said.

Mark Mueller, an Iowa farmer and president of the Iowa Corn Growers Association, gave written testimony for the committee, saying the massive increase in the cost of fertilizer is “crushing corn growers” in Iowa and other states.

“Growers across the country are facing an impossible decision: buy fertilizer or stay solvent. This is not sustainable, and it is well past time to stop ignoring the role of the fertilizer monopolies that dominate critical input markets,” Mueller said. “Right now, the price of our most essential input, fertilizer, is squeezing the life out of the American farmer like a vise. We must take action and return competition to our ag economy.”

Mueller discussed his report to the judiciary committee in more detail during a conversation on AgriTalk on Wednesday, which is available here:

Testimony from Diana Moss, vice president and director of competition policy at the Progressive Policy Institute, highlighted how the seed and fertilizer industries are dominated by only a handful of companies. She referenced a USDA study that shows two seed companies accounted for 72% of planted corn acres and 66% of planted soybean acres. In addition, Moss said the fertilizer industry is equally consolidated, with four firms controlling 77% of nitrogen production and 100% of potash and phosphate markets.

John Latham, president of Latham Hi-Tech Seeds, an independent seed company based in Alexander, Iowa, weighed in with his perspective on consolidation within the seed industry.

“Independent seed companies can offer products better suited for specific geographies than the multinationals. Unfortunately, many independent companies are going out of business as these multinational companies have become more powerful and, frankly, predatory,” Latham said, noting that the seed corn industry is 90% controlled by two companies.

Seed Costs Have Soared

Moss noted that the average price farmers paid for seed rose by 270% between 1990-2020.

“For crops planted predominately with GM seed, such as corn, soybeans, and cotton, seed prices rose by an average of 463%,” she said. “These price increases compared with commodity price inflation of 56% over the same period.”

Moss also warned that farmers also have little price transparency due to the practice of rolling seed technology prices into the total price of GM crop seed, making it harder to compare seed costs over time. “Farmers also see lower quality as previous generations of technology begin to lose their effectiveness,” she added.

Latham noted that seed prices aren’t just increasing for the newest and latest seed technology, but also on older technologies that are going off patent, or soon to be off patent. One example Latham gave is NK603, a glyphosate-resistant corn product, which went off patent in 2022.

“Farmers are being charged the highest royalties ever for this off-patent technology. More than 90% of biotech-traited corn in the United States is glyphosate resistant, so farmers are paying billions of dollars for seed royalties on a trait that has been off patent for three years,” Latham said.

Along with that, seed royalties have increased significantly. Latham said about 70% of the cost of a bag of seed goes to royalties now, compared to 42% just five years ago.

Farmers Ask For Workable Solutions

Senators from both parties expressed concern during the committee hearing, suggesting potential legislative solutions including improved transparency, antitrust enforcement, and support for independent agricultural research.

Caleb Ragland, a Kentucky farmer and president of the American Soybean Association, said Congress and the Trump administration need to take immediate action to reduce farm production costs and prevent additional family farm closures. He outlined three urgent policy priorities to improve economic conditions for U.S. soybean farmers:

1. Provide tariff relief on critical agricultural inputs such as fertilizer, seed, pesticides, machinery, and parts.

2. Finalize biofuel policy, including RFS volume obligations and 45Z Clean Fuel Production Credit guidance, to expand domestic markets for soy.

3. Deliver targeted farmer assistance to help producers manage severe market losses and negative basis impacts.

The complete committee meeting – Pressure Cooker: Competition Issues in the Seed & Fertilizer Industries – is available on YouTube.

Your next read: ‘The System Is Failing Us:' Why Real Change is Needed in U.S. Agriculture

Family Farm Saved From Eminent Domain After Capturing Nationwide Attention

Mon, 27 Oct 2025 20:10:29 GMT

Andy Henry beat eminent domain. His 21-acre, 175-year-old farm will no longer be targeted for government housing.

Henry’s fight to save his livestock operation from development caught the nation’s eye, followed by the attention of USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy, and interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey Alina Habba.

An agreement is set to permanently protect the Henry family farm. Concrete will not replace grass.

Refusal to Roll
For decades, Henry declined $25 million development offers for Highland Ranch, his 21-acre farm in Middlesex County, N.J.

However, in April 2025, the Cranbury Township Committee tagged the entire Henry property as the ideal location for an affordable housing apartment complex of 130 units. Henry, a 20-year Air Force veteran, refused to sell, even though his land was designated by the Cranbury Township Committee for replacement with apartment buildings.

He hired attorney Timothy Duggan and held tight to his farm. “The public is disturbed by the government’s actions in this case,” Duggan told Agweb. “The details are so over the top to average people that they think they’re watching a Saturday Night Live skit.”

After decades of development, Henry’s 21 acres are the last farm standing on South River Road.

(Photo by Google)

In July, Henry filed a lawsuit challenging the township’s ordinance allowing seizure by eminent domain. He followed in August with a separate challenge to the affordable housing plan.

The Cranbury Township Committee then narrowed its acquisition of Henry’s land by targeting half the farm for concrete, leaving him with 9 acres and a farmhouse. Again, Henry declined.

Henry’s refusal to roll drew admiration from multiple government figures. As political pressure mounted, the Cranbury Township Committee changed course.

Henry won. On Oct. 24, 2025, Agriculture Secretary Rollins posted an announcement on X: After months of bipartisan, federal-state collaboration, the state of New Jersey has secured an agreement that would spare the 175-year-old Henry family farm from the state’s affordable housing plan. Further efforts are also underway by USDA and the New Jersey Department of Agriculture to protect this prime farmland in perpetuity.

N.J. Gov. Murphy followed with a statement : “From the very beginning, I have opposed efforts to seize the Henry Family Farm through eminent domain. While every town in New Jersey must do its part to resolve our state’s affordable housing crisis, these efforts must be pursued thoughtfully and collaboratively,”

Henry’s farmland was technically saved via a change in the New Jersey Housing and Mortgage Finance Agency rules. (To read the legislation/agreement, see here .)

“My family sacrificed on this land for 175 years,” Henry told Agweb in June 2025, as the legal saga began unfolding. “All the other farms disappeared. We did not. We will not.”

Sincerely. A legacy saved.

Grassley Urges Trump To Prioritize A Trade Deal With China

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 20:12:03 GMT

As the government shutdown continues through day 21, there is little to no hint that a resolution to the ongoing stalemate between Republicans and Democrats is about to end.

The latest setback: On Monday night, Senate Democrats rejected a Republican-led stopgap funding bill for the 11^th time with a 50-43 vote. The resolution needed 60 votes to pass, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA).

He says more Democrats are needed to step up and vote in cooperation with Republicans to get the government reopened.

“If we can get four more Democrat votes, the government will be opened up,” Grassley contends.

In the meantime, county Farm Service Agency (FSA) offices remain closed, keeping services like new loans, farm program sign-ups, and disaster assistance from being addressed. Market data that helps set commodity prices is also not being released.

Trump has mentioned taking action to reopen the county offices, but Grassley is unsure whether he can accomplish that.

“I don’t know that he has that authority, but he surely had it with about $8 or $10 billion in the defense budget – to shift it from one activity in the Defense Department to paying the soldiers and the military people,” he told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory on Tuesday.

So far, Trump administration officials say there are no plans to shift dollars around for agriculture like they’ve done with troop pay and other priorities.

President Trump ‘Has To’ Get Trade Resumed With China
Grassley was adamant that Trump needs to make progress in pressing China for a new trade deal.

“He has to [get that done},” Grassley says. “I’d say the president needs to spend a massive amount of time, even some of his personal time, on dealing with China. I know it’s necessary to have lower-level people begin those discussions, but it’s got to be a top priority.”

The U.S. and China exchanged barbs last week, with the U.S. threatening to raise tariffs to 157% if no new deal is reached by Nov. 1. President Trump is supposed to travel to Asia later this week to renew discussions with China.

During his conversation with Flory, Grassley weighed in with his perspective on consolidation in the fertilizer, seed, equipment, the pesticide industries and how that relates to the development of potential monopolies.

“I’m going to wait until the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission gets done with their investigations before I make a decision on it,” Grassley says. “I don’t think we have to pass any laws. The antitrust laws that have been in existence for 130 or 140 years ... just use those laws as they’ve been used for the last 100 years. They’re pretty effective laws.

“It just takes the government enforced to get it done. There’s certain guidelines that have to be met and protocols be met before you actually can break up a monopoly. But the free-market system dictates you don’t have monopolies,” he adds.

Grassley also weighed in on needing year-round nationwide availability of E15, noting that he wishes the president would be more proactive in getting the product readily available on a permanent basis.

“We got legislation that would make it permanent without a presidential waiver. It ought to be easy for the president to promote that. He’s going to have a bailout for farmers because of low prices now, and he ought to connect with that – getting E15 through the Congress of the United States and have it permanent. Because until we get the law passed, we’ll never get the investment by retailers to put in the expensive pumps that it takes to get E15 out.”

Hear the complete discussion between Grassley and Flory on AgriTalk here:

Feds Target Family Over Wetlands Regulations, Ignore Supreme Court Ruling?

Tue, 21 Oct 2025 16:17:45 GMT

What happens when a family’s landlocked agriculture property is deemed a wetland and the feds disregard a historic Supreme Court ruling? U.S. landowners and farmers move two steps forward and three steps back.

In May 2025, the Army Corps of Engineers tagged 1.13 acres belonging to Caleb and Rebecca Linck of Bonner County, Idaho, as a wetland, essentially dropping Clean Water Act (CWA) authority over their entire property. Significantly, the Linck’s ground is hundreds of feet from the nearest stream and 2 miles from the nearest lake. Close enough, according to federal officials.

Astoundingly, the Lincks live in the precise county where another family won a landmark CWA Supreme Court ruling in 2023, Sackett v. EPA, essentially protecting landowners from agency overregulation.

The Lincks, represented by Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), are preparing for a legal fight. “It’s an outrage,” says PLF attorney Charles Yates. “After Sackett, the agencies went back to the drawing board. They simply won’t accept that the highest court in the land definitively told them they could not keep doing what they were doing. And it’s happening again in other cases, right now, to people all over the country.”

“This is part of a deliberate strategy on the part of these agencies to continue regulating as if Sackett didn’t happen,” Yates adds.

Even when government shrinks, it expands. Welcome to the Linck’s alarming case.

Leapfrog
In the northernmost reaches of Idaho, Caleb and Rebecca Linck own a 4.7-acre parcel inherited from family. Their hope? Live on the land and turn the spot to agriculture production in the future.

Prior to any disturbance or broken ground, the couple hired a wetlands consultant to ensure CWA adherence. The move backfired. On May 14, 2025, the Corps claimed authority over 1.13 acres of their ground—a purported federal wetland. Two months later, the Lincks, represented by PLF, filed an appeal.

The Linck’s acre of “wetlands” is hundreds of feet away from the nearest water—a stream. Their acre, zoned agriculture, is bordered by an elevated 35’-wide gravel road with no culverts. There are no land features within the acre that qualify for agency regulation. How is the Linck’s dry ground a wetland, according to the Corps?

(When contacted by Agweb.com regarding the Linck case, Corps representatives declined comment.)

A leapfrog association, claims the agency. Across the road from the Linck’s property is a farm pasture containing a swale depression. The pasture touches a stream that connects to a creek that spills into a navigable waterway. Thereby, the Linck acre is a connect-the-dots wetland in the eyes of government.

The Sackett case, arguably a mirror of the Linck case, still shocks many Americans.

(Photo by Chris Bennett)

“The Corps uses what they call a ‘wetlands complex theory,’” describes Yates. “They’re aggregating a whole bunch of wetlands in one area, and calling them one giant wetland, even if they’re separated by roads or berms or other structures.”

Subsurface connections. Groundwater hydrology. All water flows downhill. Catchall.

“By the Corps’ logic, because one little bit of the wetlands complex touches or abuts a covered water, then the whole thing can be regulated,” Yates continues. “That’s illegal for obvious reasons and it flatly violates the Sackett test.”

The Sackett case, arguably a mirror of the Linck case, still shocks many Americans.

Dozens of Cases
In Bonner County—the exact locale of the Linck’s property—the Sackett family attempted to build a subdivision home roughly a third- to half-mile distant from Priest Lake. Several previously constructed homes (and a road) stood between the Sackett property and the lake.

EPA designated the Sackett lot a wetland and issued a cease-and-desist construction order, threatening the couple with fines upward of $40,000 per day. Represented by PLF , the Sacketts fought back in court.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) issued a seismic 9-0 decision in favor of the Sacketts. In a major rebuke to EPA and the Corps, SCOTUS noted that wetlands designations should be obvious to the public, i.e., common sense should be in play. In a nutshell, SCOTUS said CWA regulations only apply to wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to navigable waters.

Justice Samuel Alito was specific: “the CWA’s use of ‘waters’ encompasses only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.”

Following the 2023 SCOTUS ruling, have regulatory agencies operated by the newly minted CWA enforcement restrictions?

Ask Iowa landowner Dan Ward. “No. They broke it immediately,” Ward said in 2024. “They ignored it and carried on, right on my property.”

“We’ve reached a place where our own officials believe they can disregard Supreme Court law,” Ward contends. “What the government is doing on my land is 100% about keeping power.”

(Photo courtesy of Dan Ward)

Ward was blocked by the Corps from building a pond on his 420-acre farm property because agency officials considered a dry depression that runs half-a-mile across his land, over 100 miles from the nearest navigable river, to be “waters of the United States.”

How many nationwide CWA cases are ongoing related to jurisdictional determinations, enforcement actions, compliance orders, or negotiations where regulatory agencies are pressing authority beyond Sackett?

“Widespread,” Yates emphasizes. “This is not just happening in Idaho or California. This is in North Carolina. This is in Iowa. This is in every corner of the country and I’m speaking about dozens of cases that I’m personally aware of.”

No Accident, No Oversight
Wash, rinse, repeat, contends Yates, who was a member of the PLF litigation team that argued the Sackett case at the Supreme Court. “The Lincks are falling victim to the exact same agency actions taken against the Sacketts. After the Sackett decision, the agencies wouldn’t accept that the highest court in the land definitively told them they could not keep doing what they were doing. Now it’s back to business as usual to assert authority to the maximum extent possible.”

The Linck’s landlocked farm property—is not so landlocked, per agency assertion.

“The Linck case is an egregious example of an agency blatantly disregarding the Supreme Court,” Yates concludes. “This is not an accident. This is not bureaucratic oversight. This is, I believe, part of a deliberate strategy on the part of these agencies to continue regulating as if Sackett didn’t happen. These agencies are holding tight to power.”

For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106), see:

Outraged Farmers Blame Ag Monopolies as Catastrophic Collapse Looms

Family Farm Wins Historic Case After Feds Violate Constitution and Ruin Business

County Shuts Down 15-Yr-Old’s Bait Stand on Family Farm, Threatens Daily Fines

Corn and Cocaine: Roger Reaves and the Most Incredible Farm Story Never Told

How the Deep State Tried, and Failed, to Crush an American Farmer

Game of Horns: Iowa Poacher’s Antler Addiction Leads to Historic Bust

Ghost Cattle: $650M Ponzi Rocks Livestock Industry, Money Still Missing

Farmer Unearths Lost Treasure, Solves WW2 Mystery

Farm Groups Offer Additional Thoughts On MAHA Strategy Report

Fri, 12 Sep 2025 02:52:01 GMT

As the dust settles from the rollout of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) strategy report – the action plan for the initial report which was released in May – farmers, farm groups and industry continue to assess what this latest document means to agriculture.

There was “a lot more transparency” in the process of developing the strategy report, released Tuesday, according to Brian Glenn, director of government affairs at American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF).

“It led to a more positive outcome in this report,” Glenn told AgriTalk Host Chip Flory.

That was not the case in May, when the initial report – which did not include farmers’ input – called out atrazine, chlorpyriphos and glyphosate as pesticides that are “exposure pathways” for potential chronic disease issues in U.S. children.

“Our biggest plea coming back into this August report was, ‘Please listen to the farmers. Ask us for our input.’ And they did ask us,” says Amy France, who farms with her family in western Kansas, near Scott City, and chairs the National Sorghum Producers.

“We had great conversations, and a big chunk of those conversations were directed to education,” France adds.

France addresses the MAHA report and her outlook for the sorghum industry at the AgriTalk link below:

Specifics On Soil Health And Precision Agriculture
What the Commission delivered on Tuesday was a 20-page report outlining 128 recommendations – a roadmap it plans to enact via a series of research projects and multiple federal agencies. Among those recommendations, pages 18-19 of the latest report specifically address “Soil Health and Stewardship of the Land” and “Precision Agriculture.”

The report says “USDA and EPA will promote and incentivize farming solutions in partnership with the private sector that focus on soil health and stewardship of the land,” and provides six specific actions. Read them and the entire report here .

Glenn told Flory that the NFBF had a mostly positive reaction to the report, which included several positive policy recommendations that support U.S. farmers and ranchers.

“There were recommendations to provide a foundation for a lifetime of smart choices, which include focus on American-grown fresh fruits, vegetables and meat. They included a recommendation on reintroducing whole milk into school meal programs. They took an opportunity to highlight efforts to prioritize and support voluntary conservation programs under USDA-NRCS and specifically mentioned the Environmental Quality Incentives Program,” Glenn says. “They even included a recommendation on highlighting EPA’s already robust pesticide regulatory process … with ways to optimize that robust process to accelerate innovation.”

While Glenn says the Commission acknowledged the safety and health of the American food supply, he stressed the importance of the Commission having continued discussions with farmers and farm groups.

“More engagement is needed [with agriculture] as there are a lot of recommendations in this report, asking for different federal agencies to look at different things, and I certainly don’t think this will be our only bite at the apple,” Glenn says.

“I think there will be more opportunities for us to engage, and that is really the message that needs to ring loud and clear for farmers and ranchers. I think us sharing our voice and story has led to a more positive outcome in this report, and I think we need to continue to do that,” he adds.

Glenn offers more perspective from the NFBF on the new MAHA strategy plan here:

MAHA Report 2.0 Gets A Thumbs Up From Farmer Groups And Industry

Tue, 09 Sep 2025 21:36:55 GMT

The Department of Health and Human Services released its action strategy to address children’s health from its Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission on Tuesday.

This is the second installment of the MAHA report – a highly anticipated follow-up to the report released by the Commission in May. Many farm organizations had said the original document was filled with “ fear-based rather than science-based information about pesticides .”

The latest report offers more than 120 initiatives that will serve as a road map to help address and resolve what Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. described as “America’s escalating health crisis, with a focus on childhood chronic diseases.”

Among the initiatives, the second report is calling for better nutrition, more physical activity and the need to address environmental health factors to improve children’s health.

Regarding environmental health, the report stops short of calling for restrictions on pesticide use. Instead, the report recommends collaboration with the agriculture industry to identify “precision agricultural techniques” that can help farmers reduce their use of crop-protection products.

🚨 Putting America’s farmers first starts with our kids. That’s why @USDA is launching a new Farm to School Grant opportunity!

What it means:

✔️Easier applications for schools & communities
✔️More small family farms connected to the lunch line
✔️Fresh, local food fueling kids’… pic.twitter.com/xBMROKGNKZ
— Secretary Brooke Rollins (@SecRollins) September 9, 2025

“Together with our partners at HHS and EPA, we are charting a new course, strengthening the health of our families, and ensuring the United States leads the world with the safest, strongest, and most abundant food supply,” said U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke L. Rollins, in a statement about the report.

As examples, Rollins referenced the removal of artificial food dye from major brands, providing technical assistance to states interested in restricting junk food and soda from SNAP, and providing farmers with new tools to maintain and improve soil health, including the introduction of a regenerative farming practice pilot program.

Farm Groups Weigh In With Their Perspective

The 20-page report was met with varying degrees of approval and feedback from U.S. farm organizations.

The National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) said the latest report appears to be a reasonable and science-based approach for achieving its objectives.

“We are encouraged that when the commission engaged with agricultural stakeholders and followed the science, it reaffirmed what we already know: EPA is the appropriate agency for regulating crop inputs,” Kenneth Hartman Jr., NCGA president, said in a statement. “We are also delighted to see precision agriculture, soil health and land stewardship prioritized, as these are areas in which corn farmers have led the way for many years.”

The Make America Healthy Again Commission released its recommendations today. We are encouraged that when the commission engaged with agricultural stakeholders and followed the science, it reaffirmed what we already know: EPA is the appropriate agency for regulating crop inputs.… pic.twitter.com/1ildZ39Wl2
— National Corn (NCGA) (@NationalCorn) September 9, 2025

The American Soybean Association (ASA) expressed cautious optimism about the report with some caveats.

“Soybean farmers are thankful the MAHA Commission recognized EPA’s approval process as the global gold standard,” said Caleb Ragland, ASA president, in a statement. “Between the May report and today’s strategy, the Commission was accessible and open to learning more about modern farming practices. We truly felt like we had a seat at the table, and for that, we are incredibly appreciative.”

However, the statement from ASA said the organization remains concerned about the misinformed rhetoric from some Commission members around edible soybean oil. “We urge careful consideration of any upcoming rulemakings that could negatively impact U.S. farmers and the public,” ASA said.

A Focus On Collaboration For Crop Protection

The MAHA strategy report offers the crop protection industry some degree of a reprieve, according to Callie Eideberg, a policy expert and principal at The Vogel Group, an international government affairs and consulting firm headquartered in Washington, D.C.

“We saw…an effort to educate the public about the EPA and their processes that they use to approve chemicals,” Eideberg told AgDay TV’s Clinton Griffith on Tuesday.

“We saw a partnership with the private sector to focus chemical applications in a very precise way. I think, overall, the chemical industry in the agricultural space is probably doing cartwheels right now because they could have faced some really tough questions and some tough recommendations. But this report, at least the way I read it, is not making major changes or really any changes at all to how agricultural chemicals are regulated by the federal government,” Eideberg said.

TFI welcomes the release of the second Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) report and the chance to highlight how nutrient stewardship, cover crops, and conservation practices strengthen both our land and our communities.

Read our full statement here: https://t.co/7taWqM4qIh
— The Fertilizer Institute (@Fertilizer_Inst) September 9, 2025

Her message was similarly echoed by the Agricultural Retailers Association (ARA):

”ARA commends the MAHA Commission for its common-sense, forward-thinking recommendations related to agricultural innovations and environmental stewardship. This report recognizes the importance of essential tools needed for America’s production agriculture using innovative precision ag technologies and other innovations,” said Daren Coppock, ARA president and CEO.

Report Recognizes The Nutritional Value Of Meat

Eideberg said she is pleased to see the approach the strategy report is taking to resolve issues laid out in the initial report through a large emphasis on education and awareness.

“Whether that is in nutrition and health or the pesticide industry, education and awareness are a big emphasis of this report, and we also saw a big push for deregulation,” Eideberg said. “The deregulation options in this report are primarily focused on smaller meat and dairy processors, which has been a big concern in [those industries] for a while. But I think those folks are going to really like what they see in this report.”

The Meat Institute noted that the latest report “is a good first step toward recognizing the nutritional value of meat and poultry after years of misguided policies attacking meat consumption.”

Farm Journal’s Drovers and Pork Business editors highlighted feedback on the MAHA strategy details from their respective industry leaders in separate reports.

Your next read: MFP 2.0? Ag Committees Consider Farm Aid Through Farm Bill 2.0

Illinois Governor Signs Bill to Improve Pesticide Applicator Process

Mon, 18 Aug 2025 18:06:29 GMT

Earlier this year, Illinois lawmakers passed legislation to improve the pesticide applicator licensing process, and on Friday, Gov. JB Pritzker signed it into law.

An initiative of the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association (IFCA), the bill passed the Illinois Senate 50-4 and the state house 116-0.

Set to begin for the fall of 2027, the Illinois Department of Agriculture will adopt a continuing education credits (CECs) program for pesticide applicators meaning current valid license holders can renew their license with CEC credits.

“IFCA would like to thank Gov. Pritzker for signing SB783 into law,” said Kevin Johnson, president of the Illinois Fertilizer and Chemical Association in its newsletter alert. “IFCA has always believed Illinois should utilize continuing education as an option to maintain an individual’s pesticide license.”

Johnson adds how continuing CEC is the best format for pesticide applicators to stay up to date, and it’s widely used by other midwestern states.

And he notes while the new process will slightly increase the pesticide applicator license fee in order for the Illinois Department of Ag to implement the program, the improvements to the process will be valuable to all stakeholders.

“We are excited for this new opportunity for members to recertify but want to stress that there are many moving parts behind the scenes in the creation of this new program and that it will take some time to get off the ground. We will continue to inform membership of the timeline of when continuous education credits will be rolled out as we move forward,” Johnson said.

Recent Funding, Staffing Changes at USDA Could Risk Ag Research

Fri, 15 Aug 2025 01:50:23 GMT

Concerned. Uncertain. Worried. Unsure.

These were the most common words members of the Science Societies — including American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America and Soil Science Society of America — participating in an Aug. 13 webinar used to describe the current agricultural research funding world they live in today.

“There has been a lot of disruption in the normal funding process, especially at USDA,” said Julie McClure, agricultural policy expert with Torrey Advisory Group and the Societies, who MCed the webinar. “There have been a lot of actions taken by this administration that have implications for the research enterprise.”

Those actions included the deferred resignation program offered to federal employees in late January and the late February requirement that all federal agencies plan for and implement reorganizations and reductions in force . On July 8, USDA issued a guidance that, among other things, restricts who federal researchers can co-author research articles with. By the July 24 announcement of USDA’s planned reorganization , it had already shed over 15% of its total workforce.

According to panelists, the on-the-ground results have been the chilling effect of uncertainty, lost research, lost opportunities for students, and a potential future where public-private partnerships in ag research are in doubt and research is driven by politics rather than science.

Uncertainty abounds

The sharp reductions in staffing at USDA agencies have left university researchers awash in uncertainty according to panelists. For example, Michael Thompson, a soil science professor at Iowa State University and past SSSA president, described his experience at Iowa State University where soil scientists collaborate closely with colleagues in USDA agencies and programs.

“The USDA reductions in force have affected personnel and programs in the National Cooperative Soil Survey Program,” he explained, describing it as a collaborative initiative of local, state, federal agencies and experiment stations that improves soil maps around the country.

“Because of the reductions in personnel and the potential reorganization, there’s really a lot of concern that USDA’s larger plans for reorganization could reduce or eliminate the National Cooperative Soil Survey Program,” he added. “The future of that kind of federal-state collaboration is certainly in serious doubt.”

The funding disruptions have also cast doubt beyond just academia, according to panelist Colin Campbell, vice president of research, development, engineering and software at Meter Group, an agricultural and environmental research and technology company.

“USDA funding is a big part of how we fund our research to make more instrumentation,” he said. Campbell described worry over if already granted funding or personnel will be pulled as resulting in inaction. “For example, the Climate Smart Agriculture grant that we worked really heavily on and all got funded, but now the work’s not getting done.”

Lost opportunities

Panelists talked about lost opportunities. In some cases, finished government-funded research cannot cross the proverbial finish line because of recent changes, according to Thompson, pointing to the recent guidance that bars USDA employees from “authoring or co-authoring a scholarly publication” without some logistically taxing requirements.

“Completed research projects cannot now be published,” he said of the situation.

Panelists cited the obvious loss of research opportunities as well; canceled grants and pulled funding. Thompson said there had been 14 projects canceled or stopped permanently, including two in his soil science department. One project that dealt with renewable natural gas production from anaerobic digestion of biomass and manure mixture, while the other focused on training technical service providers about soil sampling for carbon content.

“The loss of funding led to the layoff of a professional soil scientist in our department and to shifting support for grad students to other projects.”

The impact on students was a point of concern for panelists. Diane Rowland, director of the Maine Agricultural and Forest Experiment Station at the University of Maine, described the impact on workforce development as huge.

“We’re training the next generation that will feed into the workforce,” she said.

Questions about the future

On Aug. 7, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that changed oversight processes for federal grants. Very generally, it requires federal agencies to appoint one or more senior appointees to review federal grant applications to ensure they “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.” This was an area of uncertainty for the future.

“There are a lot of questions about exactly how this executive order will be enacted, what that means for particularly universities that receive a lot of federal funding through different grants,” McClure noted. “I do think this will add significant time to the process of grant review and funding distribution. And obviously a lot more scrutiny, and scrutiny that won’t be scientific in nature, it will be more of a political scrutiny.”

She said her understanding is that, for the USDA specifically, very few of the necessary appointees that have either been made or cleared through Congress where applicable.

“There are just so many hours in the day that a single person can be reviewing what are often very technical proposals,” she said, adding that reports of delays on grant funding or responses on grants are unsurprising in that situation.

Thompson also raised concerns about the future of independent science with the closing of EPA’s Office of Research and Development , which began in July.

“That office was EPA’s independent science arm that conducted research on detecting pollutant mobility and toxicity in soils and water,” he said, adding the office informed policy decisions and funded many soil- and water-related grants at universities like ISU.

“While it’s possible that a new EPA office on applied science and environmental solutions may be created, its science is not going to be politically independent like the office of research and development was,” he said. “A lot of soil scientists like me have had funding from EPA. The future of that funding is in serious doubt.”

Farmers, Truckers and Gear Heads Rejoice: EPA Rolls Out Streamlined Diesel Engine Fluid Guidelines

Tue, 12 Aug 2025 16:02:00 GMT

EPA is rolling out new guidance for manufacturers of farm equipment and other heavy-duty vehicles, removing regulatory red tape requiring diesel-powered farm equipment to reduce engine torque dramatically when a problem arises with the machine’s Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) system.

You can read EPA’s statement on the announcement here.

The new rule making goes into effect immediately for all new diesel engines on model year 2027 machines. It should also be noted the new guidance from EPA is voluntary for all non road equipment. Ultimately, each manufacturer will have the right to choose whether it implements the new inducement strategy or maintains the status quo with its own machines.

To fix the problem for farm machinery already in the field, EPA’s new guidance, developed in collaboration with farm equipment manufacturers, will work to ensure necessary software changes can be made on the existing fleet.

(EPA)

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin says now all non-road equipment, like farm tractors, combines and sprayers, must be configured so there is no impact on engine power for up to 36 hours when a DEF system malfunction occurs. Once 36 engine hours have passed, a 25% reduction in engine torque will go into effect until the machine is serviced. If the farm equipment is not fixed within 100 engine hours, then a 50% reduction in torque is activated until the machine can be serviced.

Additionally, farm equipment can be restarted with full engine power three times for up to 30 minutes after inducement, according to the EPA release.

“This is the first crack in the ice toward saying we don’t need these expensive systems on our farm equipment,” says Ben Reinsche, owner, Blue Diamond Farming Company in Jesup, Iowa. “We don’t need to immediately shut off an engine or be restricted for 36 hours if you have DEF unavailable or a malfunction.

“This is a positive step and maybe a formative step toward saying that having these emission standards on farm or off-road equipment is not critically necessary,” adds Reinsche. “There are so many other things farmers can do that are planet positive, like using conservation and sustainability practices, rather than having an after treatment system on our diesel engines.”

Small Business Administration (SBA) leader Kelly Loeffler says the new rule will save 1.8 million family farms across America a staggering $727 million per year while offering “vital financial and operational certainty.”

“This announcement today is such a big deal, especially on behalf of our farmers and ranchers,” says USDA secretary Brook Rollins. “At a time when our ag sector is really hurting, our farmers have had to endure a 30% cost increase in inputs, and a $30 billion Biden-era trade deficit, these everyday regulations being lifted makes such a difference.”

The new guidance greatly reduces a machine setting known as DEF derating and allows operators more time to secure DEF, refuel and make repairs. The new guidance also reportedly retains the environmental benefits of Tier 4 engine and DEF regulations for farm equipment and trucks.

“Today we are taking another important step forward by undoing these diesel fluid guidelines that have hurt our farmers and small rural businesses,” says U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa). “Not only will these new guidelines save family-run farms hundreds of millions of dollars per year, but it is also just common sense, folks. No farmer should have their tractor come to a halt in the middle of a field due to Green New Deal-style regulations from Washington.”

How Did We Get Here?

EPA ushered in DEF requirements for large farm equipment when it enacted broader Tier 4 emissions standards in 2004.

Tier 4 Interim rules, which required DEF for farm machines 750 horsepower and up, then went into effect in 2008.

In 2015, EPA’s final Tier 4 regulations were put in place, meaning all new non-road diesel engines — regardless of horsepower rating — had to comply with new emissions standards.

Curious where your farm equipment is made? Check out Farm Journal’s “Who Makes What Where” feature to learn more.

Why Do Many Farmers Hate Using Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF)?

American farmers say they detest using DEF due to the challenges and additional fuel cost it tacks onto their operations.

Here are some reasons farmers aren’t big fans of DEF:

Higher Costs and More Maintenance: DEF adds on extra materials costs for machinery-based field work. Farmers must purchase large amounts of fluid, and the Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) framework that processes DEF is prone to malfunctions and expensive to repair. Often a simple-but-unexpected repair can pop up out of nowhere and end up costing farmers thousands of dollars and leave equipment inoperable.
Field Work Interruptions: If a tractor runs out of DEF or if the system breaks down, under the now-defunct previous guidelines engine power was greatly reduced, which is known by many farmers as “going into limp mode.” For farmers who rely on their equipment to operate consistently and reliably during planting and harvesting, any issue quickly becomes a major headache.
Storage Issues: DEF has a limited shelf life and is sensitive to temperature ups and downs. A quick Google search says DEF freezes at around 12°F and can degrade if stored in temperatures above 86°F. And who wants to look at a giant pallet of DEF cartons stacked in their machinery barn? Nobody, that’s who.
Contamination/Quality Control: DEF fluid must be pure and free of contaminants. Accidentally using the wrong type or getting foreign substances in the tank during refilling can wreak havoc throughout the system, leading to repairs and downtime.
Engine Performance Concerns: There are farmers who believe newer emissions systems, including those that use DEF, reduce the machine’s total power output and lower fuel efficiency.

Your Next Read: MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

MAHA Policy Announcement Delayed, Agriculture Waits For Any Implications From Earlier Report

Mon, 11 Aug 2025 21:35:38 GMT

In late May, farmers and the agricultural industry were bracing for the release of the Make America Healthy Again report, which was to focus on children’s health and chronic diseases. Then came the 68-page report, which was responded to by farmers and  more than 300 agriculture organizations  sharing their concerns. Per the President’s executive order establishing the timeline for the MAHA report, policy recommendations were to be given to the president by Aug. 12.

Today, the White House said to not expect MAHA policy recommendations to be announced tomorrow. The Commission will deliver its recommendations by the deadline, per the executive order, however, per White House spokesman Kush Desai schedules of the President and cabinet members need to be coordinated for the public announcement.

Particularly in focus for the agricultural groups in their response to the MAHA movement has been any references to three crop protection active ingredients: glyphosate, atrazine and chloripyrifos. These three were included in the MAHA report as a list of products that can contribute to chronic disease in children.

In its response to the MAHA report, National Corn Growers Association said its findings show that if the three pesticides were to disappear completely, crop yields could decrease by more than 70% due to pests, weeds and disease.

Politico reported on unnamed sources saying the White House has been meeting with stakeholder groups leading up to the policy announcements.

Bayer Affirms Support of Glyphosate, Optimistic for a Future with Over the Top Dicamba Labels

Wed, 06 Aug 2025 19:03:08 GMT

Heading into the second half of their 2025 financial year, Bayer leaders echo positive comments surrounding the company’s crop science division.

What has them bullish?

First, Bayer is optimistic the EPA will have an approved label for over the top dicamba products for the 2026 crop year.

“We are working very close with EPA and the process, but we feel confident that we’re going to have the label for the ‘26 season,” said Rodrigo Santos, head of Bayer Crop Science.

In 2024, the labels were vacated by federal courts and over the top application of dicamba was not legal in soybeans and cotton this growing season.

As part of the registration process for the future labels, the public comment period is currently open, and it closes toward the end of this month. Read more here.

Second, 95+ million acres of corn increased the division’s net sales 2.2% year-over-year for the second quarter. Within their business for the quarter, corn seed and traits were up 30%, soybeans were down 18% and cotton was down 26%, of which the later two declines were attributed to the dicamba vacatur effecting the 2025 crop year.

Santos, head of Bayer Crop Science says that could flip next year.
“We had 95 million acres of corn in US this year. You see that on the future price of corn, you’re probably going to see a little bit more of favor market for soybean next year versus corn. And we see some opportunities with soybean, with the [dicamba] label, but also with the business that we have,” he said.

Santos added the excellent growing conditions for farmers in the U.S. not only supports strong commodity grain yields but also the company’s seed production is benefiting with high quality supply forecasted.

Third, Bayer has expanded its support of glyphosate and protecting the product in its ongoing litigation. Last week, the company announced an additional $1.3 billion allotted toward lawsuit management, court proceedings and settlements.

“These decisions are part of our multi-pronged strategy to significantly contain litigation by the end of 2026, which we affirm today,” said CEO Bill Anderson during the earnings call. “Simply put, every decision we make has the goal of positioning the company to move past our litigation woes.”

He added, “This isn’t a turning point. We are turning over every stone to the various approaches that we’ve called out in the past, and we remain committed to substantially contain this litigation threat to the company by the end of next year.”

Anderson said the company has settled 17,000 cases at a “low cost per case.”

He also added, “in June, the US Supreme Court requested input from the Solicitor General in the glyphosate case. We welcome this step, and we expect a recommendation in the coming weeks or months. This decision keeps intact the broader timeline of having a SCOTUS ruling by summer of next year. But our strategy is multi pronged, and we’re not dependent on a singular milestone like a positive SCOTUS decision.”

You can read more here.

“We continue to examine additional options to protect the company, and everything remains on the table,” Anderson said. “We remain acutely aware of the threat of this issue for U.S. farmers, U.S. consumers and our company, this is an important time with numerous prongs of our strategy advancing toward important junctures. As we move forward, we’re making each decision with one broader goal in mind, narrowing the overall threat, and bringing our company closer to containment.”

Fourth, Bayer boasted on its pipeline and forthcoming products.
It recently submitted Icafolin-methyl for approval in four markets: the U.S., Canada and Brazil. The company says this is a ‘blockbuster’ herbicide molecule employing a mode of action not seen in commercial agriculture in over 30 years.

Read more about it here.

Fifth, the company has progressed with its new business model and operations streamlining.

Now in its second year, dynamic shared ownership, the term coined by Anderson for its new business model continues to progress. Since the rollout started, the company has reduced 12,000 full-time roles and personnel.

Additionally, Bayer has reached an agreement on the single points of a joint declaration with its workers representatives and can begin streamlining its production and operations in Germany.

$1.3 Billion More: Bayer Gives Details on Litigation Plan For Glyphosate Cases

Mon, 04 Aug 2025 21:38:10 GMT

At the end of July, and before the company’s quarterly earnings report coming on Aug. 6, Bayer announced it has allocated an additional $1.37 billion to its efforts around glyphosate litigation.

The company says this was decided after the adverse verdict on Bayer’s appeal in a Missouri Court of appeals case, Anderson et. al., and Bayer’s application to have the case transferred to the Missouri Supreme Court.

To-date Bayer has paid more than $10 billion to plaintiffs in litigation claiming Roundup as the cause of their cancer. The additional financial provisions support Bayer’s stated goal to get glyphosate litigation and liabilities contained by 2026. The latest announcement from Bayer states the timeframe as “by the end of 2026” whereas previous reports have more been ambiguous about the 2026 deadline.

Three-Pronged Approach

So far this year, there has been a steady stream of news about Bayer’s work with its multipronged strategy to achieve the goal. This includes court case management, state law advocacy, and a call to the Supreme Court to review the FIFRA’s preemption provision.

The company says a recent settlement with a plaintiff’s law firm has helped it reach of milestone of less than 61,000 unresolved glyphosate claims. In total, there have been 192,000 lawsuits brought forward.

A handful of states have considered and some have passed legislation to clarify responsibilities of manufacturers who have products proceed through the federal labeling process.

And third, as reported at the end of June, the company is awaiting news from the Solicitor General and if the Supreme Court will take up its case during the 25/26 judicial session.

How’s Bayer’s Crop Science Business?

The company will report more details on Wednesday, but in its pre-call news release, Bayer says it’s reaffirming its previous guidance for the Crop Science division. In the second quarter of 2025, Bayer Crop Science increased sales by 2.2% on a currency- and portfolio-adjusted basis.

Bayer’s corporate structure and business have been undergoing a global transformation under CEO Bill Anderson. Analysts have said this year, the company’s second year of the new organization, is critical for its success. Acknowledging the work ahead, Anderson previous said in March, “You’re going to see us with our sleeves rolled up, focused on taking the right actions to set up our customers, our company and our owners for a prosperous future.”

Corn Growers Alarmed Key Herbicides Face Uncertain Future

Fri, 01 Aug 2025 20:42:34 GMT

Blake Hurst considers glyphosate to be one of the most valuable crop production tools available in his farming toolbox.

The northwest Missouri farmer expressed concerns, during a media briefing hosted by Modern Ag Alliance, that the popular weed-control product would be targeted by the Make America Healthy Again report.

Hurst was right to be concerned.

Three technologies – glyphosate, atrazine and chloripyrifos – were called out in the Report, albeit via comments buried on page 35 of the 68-page document. The Report referenced the three weed-control chemistries as part of its list of products that can contribute to chronic disease in children.

In response to the Report, the National Corn Growers Association (NCGA) said it has spent the ensuing months “sounding the alarms about the MAHA Commission’s focus on herbicides.”

The association sponsored a farmer survey between June 17 and July 2 to assess farmer sentiment about glyphosate and atrazine, specifically.

The two products are used extensively in U.S. corn production to address various grass and broadleaf weeds. Industry estimates are that atrazine is used on about 60% of U.S. corn acres, while glyphosate is applied on nearly all herbicide-treated corn acres – 90.4% in total, according to the National Corn Growers Association .

Farmers and  more than 300 agriculture organizations  have engaged with the MAHA Commission in recent months to share concerns.

Corn Growers Surveyed Say Weeds Are Their Top Pest
Respondents indicated overwhelmingly – 85% – that weeds are the top pest plaguing their crops and that atrazine and glyphosate were their top two herbicides of choice.

(NCGA)

Survey responses were gathered from more than 1,000 farmers nationwide and a summary of the findings was released this week.

“American corn growers say they would face higher costs and reductions in crop yields if they were to lose access to key herbicides like atrazine and glyphosate,” the NCGA reported in a press release.

NCGA said its findings show that if the pesticides in the initial assessment were to disappear completely, crop yields could decrease by more than 70% due to pests, weeds and disease.

“These results are in line with what I am hearing in conversations among farmers,” said Illinois farmer and NCGA President Kenneth Hartman Jr., in a prepared statement. “We are concerned that claims about herbicides in the pending MAHA recommendations could remove access to the tools we need to safely and sustainably produce a crop.”

Farmers Want The Commission To Hear Their Concerns
NCGA said the survey findings reveal high stakes for the MAHA Commission’s next report, a set of policy recommendations expected to be released sometime yet this month, as early as August 12.

The NCGA said the crop protection tools in question have been thoroughly tested by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and other regulatory bodies and shown to be safe for their intended uses.

“Given that the EPA’s robust regulatory process has found these products to be safe when used according to label directions, there is no reason to suggest that they are harmful,” Hartman noted. “Doing so will come at a great cost to farmers and rural America.”

Blake Hurst said that outcome would be likely for his Missouri operation.

“As a corn and soybean farmer, I use [glyphosate] to control weeds, keep my yields up and my costs down,” Hurst said. “It’s reliable, affordable and effective. Without it, I’d be stuck using alternatives that don’t work as well and might not be as safe.”

Learn More about the Survey Here .

Your next read: Can Pulse Crops Double Acreage by 2030? The Push to Include More Pulses in the MAHA Movement